By LOIS WEISS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Post (http://www.nypost.com)

December 12, 2001 -- On Real Estate

The Gray Lady expected to unveil its - until now - unseen final designs for the Renzo Piano and Fox &amp; Fowle 52-story New York Times tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/default.htm) tomorrow at a politically -studded event at The New 42nd Street Studios (http://www.wirednewyork.com/duke.htm). The project, at 1.5 million square feet, is being developed and co-owned by Forest City Ratner.

The dramatic, ethereal looking structure has been slenderized from the original scheme that called for four, expensive exterior glass staircases. Now, the curtain walls and what they expect will be a slender telecommunications antenna will rise above the lighted roof terrace. The ground level features a covered atrium garden and public spaces.

The site of the future New York Times Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/default.htm): South (left on the photo) of 41st Street at 8th Avenue, with the clock at the right at the entrance to Hilton Times Square Hotel (http://www.wirednewyork.com/hilton_times_square.htm)

This is a machine translation by Google of Italian article http://www.trama.com.ec/T76/rev76f.html

Renzo Piano:
Host Rascacielo of the New York Times

"Light, It is transparent and immaterial", thus it defines Renzo Piano to his recent creation, rascacielo for New York. One is the new seat of made famous the periodic The New York Times. The building will begin to be constructed in the 2002.

Of rectangular plant, of 250 meters of stop, one will be prolonged by a great antenna. In the top a garden will be constructed that will serve as observatory of the city. The volume glass finish will be perceived as it is transparent, will use in addition ceramic white that takes the color from the atmosphere and that changes second to second, reflecting a new color as the conditions of light become. She is ceramic contributes to that the volume is power sustainable from the ecological point of view, when reducing the heat transmission, a chronic problem in the skyscrapers.
In order to make this Renzo work Piano it had to win to other 3 great names of the international architecture, To stop Pelli, Norman Foster and Frank Gehry. This building promises to become new ícono of New York and to occupy a preponderant place in the contemporanea architecture. It is the work prolongation most important of the Italian architect, designer of the famous center George Pompidou in Francia and of the Aeropuesto the International of Osaka in Japan.
Piano says, "it will be a building that sings, that vibrates and that is mirror of the time".

http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/renzo_piano_ny_times_tower.jpg

noharmony

December 14th, 2001, 11:16 AM

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com)

December 14, 2001

Times Goes Forward on Plan for Tower on Eighth Avenue

By DAVID W. DUNLAP

At a moment when skyscrapers have never seemed more vulnerable, The New York Times Company and Forest City Ratner Companies declared their intention yesterday to build a 52-story tower described by its designers in terms of lightness and transparency.

"We do not believe that is inconsistent with security at all," said Michael Golden, vice chairman and senior vice president of the Times Company.

The final design of the tower was made public at a news conference at the New 42nd Street Studios (http://www.wirednewyork.com/duke.htm) less than an hour after the Times Company and Forest City Ratner posted letters of credit worth $106 million to guarantee they would meet the cost of acquiring the site, across Eighth Avenue from the Port Authority Bus Terminal. New York State will condemn 10 properties to create the site, which it will lease for 99 years. Mr. Golden would not put a price on the construction project.

The Times will move its headquarters to the Eighth Avenue tower in 2005 from 229 West 43rd Street, which it will sell. It will own and occupy 800,000 square feet of space in the new building, from the 2nd through 28th floors. Forest City Ratner will own 600,000 square feet and lease floors 29 through 50 to office tenants, asking rents of $75 to $85 a square foot annually.

There are to be restaurants on the 40th and 41st Street sides, stores at the Eighth Avenue corners and a 350- seat auditorium with views of a courtyard filled with birch trees across its stage.

At the summit will be a small grove of maples outside a rooftop conference room, above which a lightweight mast will rise, with no broadcasting or technical function, and will sway in the wind. "It shows where the fresh air comes from," said Renzo Piano, the Italian architect who designed the building with Fox &amp; Fowle. "That is a good enough reason to exist, for me."

Two skins will clad the building: one of transparent glass and another of some 250,000 white ceramic rods, one and five-eighths inches in diameter, arrayed in screens suspended one and a half feet from the exterior wall, spaced at varying intervals to allow people inside to see out — and the other way around.

"From the outside to the inside, the inside to the outside, there is a permeable feeling," said Mr. Piano, whose works include the exoskeletal Pompidou Center in Paris. "The building talks about movement to the street and the street sees it."

Mr. Piano said Times executives had decided in the wake of the attack on New York to stick with the concept of transparency and visibility "not really as defiance to terrorism but because it was correct."

To the top of the mast, the tower will reach 1,142 feet, almost 100 feet taller than the Chrysler Building. The ceramic screens will reach a height of 840 feet and the building itself will be 748 feet, slightly shorter than Carnegie Hall Tower at 152 West 57th Street.

"It breaks new ground," Gov. George E. Pataki said at the news conference. "This moves the Times Square redevelopment process further to the west" — exactly the outcome feared by many in the Clinton neighborhood, one of the last low-rise and moderate-income pockets in mid-Manhattan.

Some 55 businesses — sex shops, trade schools, a student dormitory, architectural and engineering firms and third-generation hatters and fabric dealers — will be displaced to make way for the tower.

The project will benefit from $26.1 million of government incentives: sales-tax exemptions on the equipment and materials used in the new building, a waiver of the mortgage- recording tax and a discount on electricity rates.

Though the developers will pay acquisition costs up front for the 200- by-400-foot site, they will ultimately be liable for only $85.56 million. The excess will be refunded over time as a credit against the rent they pay for the site, made as a payment in lieu of taxes, meaning that the city is likely to forgo millions in future revenue.

Citing that deal, Gary Barnett of the Intell Management and Investment Company, who owns a parking lot on the development site, filed suit last week against the project. He charged that the "sweetheart arrangement" between the government and the developers amounted to "fraud, bad faith and collusion against the taxpayers of the city" and a waste of taxpayers' money.

A spokeswoman for the Times Company, Catherine J. Mathis, said the lawsuit was without merit.

Lawyers were busy Wednesday as partnership agreements were signed between Forest City Ratner and ING Real Estate, a subsidiary of the ING Group, a financial concern in the Netherlands. They then signed a partnership agreement with the Times Company. Then the developers signed agreements with the city and state.

Bruce C. Ratner, president and chief executive of Forest City Ratner, said yesterday, "The hardest part has really been done."

NEW YORK CITY-Yesterday's press conference introducing the final design for a new New York Times headquarters building turned into a celebration of the city itself, with an ebullient Governor George Pataki persuading a packed house at 42nd Street's Duke Theater (http://www.wirednewyork.com/duke.htm) that happy days, if not quite yet here again, are certainly within reach.
Introduced by Times Co. vice chairman Michael Golden, Pataki hailed the deal as a triumph for the city. "This is an important day because a decade or two from now people are going to look back and say this is another symbol that New York is coming back stronger than ever."

The dramatic, Renzo Piano-designed office tower is being developed through a network of joint ventures between the New York Times Co., Forest City Ratner Co. and financial partner ING Real Estate. Arranged by Insignia/ESG vice chairman Mary Ann Tighe and executive managing director Gregory Tosko, the three-pronged deal includes an alliance between the Times and FCRC; a separate deal between FCRC and ING; and the 99-year, $85.6-million ground lease and land acquisition agreement between the Times, FCRC and the City and State of New York. The lease gives the joint venture the option to purchase the site after 29 years. FCRC will be the developer of the project, which will open in two phases during 2005 and 2006.

The building will be located on the east side of Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets, opposite the Port Authority Bus Terminal. The 79,000-sf parcel, which will be acquired via condemnation by the state of 10 land parcels, occupies the entire block along Eighth Avenue and extends roughly half a block east toward Seventh Avenue. The condemnation and relocation of business on the site is expected to take up to one year.

Construction on the 840-foot tower is expected to begin in early 2003 and delivery is scheduled for 2006. The Times Co. will own and occupy roughly 800,000 sf of space on floors two through 28. The Times newsroom will occupy floors two through seven. FCRC will own approximately 600,000 sf of office space on floors 29 through 50 and 20,000 sf of ground-floor retail, all of which will be leased out. The project is expected to generate 2,300 construction jobs and 3,500 permanent jobs. Of the latter, 2,500 will be Times employees and 1,000 will work in the stores and offices leased by FCRC.

Piano, winner of the 1988 Pritzker Prize in Architecture, is collaborating with Fox &amp; Fowle Architects on the project, which features a glass curtain wall designed to give the building a transparent appearance. Thin horizontal ceramic tubes placed on a steel framework in front of the glass will take on the changing color of the sky during the course of the day as light focuses on them from different angles.

"At street level," Piano says, "the building will be open, transparent and permeable." Glass-enclosed retail spaces along the ground floor will allow passersby to view the lobby and ground-floor gardens. The ground level will also house a 350-seat auditorium that will be operated by the Times Co. and used for cultural and civic events. The design also incorporates a rooftop conference center.

While yesterday's event was ostensibly a kick-off party for the just-closed Times deal and a chance to see what the tower will add to the Midtown skyline, Pataki seized the opportunity to tout the project's greater impact on the area, both fiscally and philosophically. The building, he said, is an expression of "belief in tomorrow, belief that this great city is the center of commerce and finance and the media for the 21st century. It's also important because it breaks new ground. This moves the Times Square redevelopment process further to the west, including Eighth Avenue."

Positioning the Times project as an anchor for the westward push envisioned in the just released city/state plan for the redevelopment of Far West Midtown, Pataki expressed hope for "building a new tower over the Port Authority Bus Terminal, building a new Penn Station, extending the subway line so that we can open up the west side to the type of investment and commitment in the future that will make this great city even stronger."

Sharing the dais with Pataki, Golden and Piano were New York City Economic Development Corp. president Michael G. Carey, developers Bruce and Albert Ratner, and Empire State Development Corp. chairman Charles A. Gargano.

The NY Times Tower is gonna be a great addition for the city and the Times Square Redevelopment further west to eighth and ninth avenues, i wonder if the pole which will bring the tower over 1100 ft. will be lit up??????

Rich Battista

December 19th, 2001, 06:02 PM

The NY Times Tower is gonna be a great addition for the city and the Times Square Redevelopment further west to eighth and ninth avenues, i wonder if the pole which will bring the tower over 1100 ft. will be lit up??????

Rich Battista

December 19th, 2001, 06:17 PM

I have one question about this huge building going up in the near future,

Will the pole that sends the building to over 1100ft. in height be lit up??????????
please e-mail me at
rmbattista@nyc.rr.com

MikeV

December 19th, 2001, 08:50 PM

Ugh, I hate the Ghery proposal. *It has no order or orginization of any sort; its just an abstract hunk of glass plopped down in the middle of manhattan. *Maybe if it was 1/10th the size, but 800 feet? *I don't think so. *The current version has really grown on mean, and i beleive they made the right choice.

Rich Battista

December 20th, 2001, 12:33 AM

Will someone please answer my question about if the pole at the top of this building will be lit up!!!!!!!

thanks rich

noharmony

December 22nd, 2001, 12:46 AM

Kris, thanks for these excellent pictures. The last picture shows well the screen of ceramic tubes at the top of the building.

A quote from DesignArchitecture.com: "One of the most striking features will be the curtain wall. Much of the double thermal-pane glass will be screened by thin, horizontal ceramic tubes placed on a steel framework positioned one to two feet in front of the glass; in other places, this screen will be made of metal and glass louvers."

Does anybody know whether the screen of ceramic tubes was used as a design element before?

As to the use of metal louvers in some parts of the screen, just a block away from New York Times Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/new_york_times_tower.htm) is The New 42nd Street Studios (http://www.wirednewyork.com/duke.htm) building designed by Charles Platt and Ray Dovell.

A quote from New York Magazine: "The hallucinatory rainbow on most of its skin results from computerized uplights reflecting off perforated stainless-steel fins crossing the front. Programmed to mix and shift colors in continuous play, the lights project onto blades that are silhouetted against a blue backdrop created by yet more lights washing an interior scrim." See the picture

http://www.wirednewyork.com/images/new42nd_lights.jpg

Edward

January 4th, 2002, 12:14 PM

The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com)

SPIFFING UP THE GRAY LADY

Issue of 2002-01-07
Posted 2001-12-31

Before last month, you could believe that the Times was never going to go through with it. Yes, the paper had sponsored a major architectural competition a year and a half ago for its new headquarters (http://www.wirednewyork.com/new_york_times_tower.htm), on Eighth Avenue, but the design it selected—a shimmering tower of transparent glass by Renzo Piano—was the last thing you would expect to be built by a conservative corporation, let alone the one that publishes America's most serious newspaper. This was a skyscraper for Gianni Agnelli, maybe, but not for Arthur Sulzberger. But, then again, the Arthur Sulzberger who is in charge of the Times today is not the Arthur Sulzberger who was in charge of the paper a generation ago, when it redid its newsroom with fake-wood Formica furniture and orange carpeting. Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., who took over as chairman of the New York Times Company in 1997, has an eye for design, and he saw the disjunction between the way the Times has regarded its own surroundings and the way the paper's critics preach the virtues of great architecture for other people.

Still, even if Sulzberger was behind Piano's unusual skyscraper, he and his colleagues had to figure out how to get the design approved by the city and state agencies that oversee the Forty-second Street development project, and convince the paper's partner, the real-estate developer Forest City Ratner, that the fifty-two-story tower would attract tenants for the upper floors. After September 11th, when almost every corporation became architecture-phobic, the Times would have had an easy excuse to fold up its glass tent, send Piano back home to Genoa, and build something ordinary, or nothing at all.

What nobody expected was the splashiest announcement of a new skyscraper since Donald Trump gave us Trump World Tower. The Times building is the biggest project to be unveiled in New York since the destruction of the World Trade Center, and it would have drawn plenty of attention even if it had been just another corporate box. When the Times held a press conference to reveal the final plan for the building, which Piano designed in association with the New York firm Fox &amp; Fowle, Governor George Pataki showed up to hail it as "creative and brilliant," and Bruce Ratner, the president of Forest City Ratner, repeatedly referred to the tower as "really pretty."

The true sign that the Times had got religion about architecture was the way Renzo Piano, and not one of the Times executives or public officials who were present, turned out to be the star of the show. Piano, who has a gray beard and never seems entirely comfortable in a business suit, speaks with a mellifluous Italian accent. Even though he was trained as an engineer, he is probably better than any architect at convincing people that buildings are not just objects of shelter but exercises in poetry. For fifteen minutes, he held his audience rapt as he explained the rationale of the building, which is to be a slender tower of transparent glass, sheathed in a webbing of white ceramic rods that will form a protective sunscreen.

"For no reason, I prefer things that are light," Piano said, sauntering back and forth beside a set of renderings and floor plans, on easels, and a six-foot-high model of the building. "An architect fights all his life against gravity—this is our destiny, a building that is light and transparent and vibrant. It is like it is breathing, and it keeps changing. . . . Architecture is, of course, about making buildings, but it is also about telling stories, and the story I hope this building tells is not about arrogance and power. I hope this building will tell a story about transparency and lightness."

The outer mesh of ceramic will give the tower a soft texture and make it appear almost like mist against the sky. Piano said the rods would look like lace, and at one point he spoke of his desire to juxtapose "the 'precarity' of the lace and the strength of the steel." He thought for a moment, and then turned to Michael Golden, the Times company's vice-chairman, and said, "Don't worry, Mike. The lace won't really be precarious."

Piano had to make some adjustments to his earlier design in order to both survive the city's ruthless approval process and convince the Times and the developer of its practicality. The original tower was to have been cantilevered over an open piazza, but it will now rise directly up from Eighth Avenue, and behind it there will be a low wing, wrapped around a garden, containing the Times' newsroom. And Piano has come up with a new top: another garden with full-size trees and a three-hundred-foot-high central mast, which will sway slightly in the wind.

"Renzo absolutely demanded the garden and the mast," Bruce Fowle, one of the architects, said. "The mast has no function—it is kinetic sculpture. Renzo says it gives you something to love."

— Paul Goldberger

redbrick

January 27th, 2002, 08:49 PM

The 42nd St Studios building is highly under rated.

NoyokA

January 28th, 2002, 10:23 AM

Rich Battista: it will definetly be lit, I know this for a fact.

Fabb

January 28th, 2002, 03:30 PM

I'm not so sure. The crown of Bear Stern was supposed to be lit too.

NoyokA

January 28th, 2002, 04:00 PM

This is what I've heard from Lois Weis of the NYPOST

Rich Battista

January 29th, 2002, 09:30 PM

thanks, Stern

Its great to have something built in my lifetime that is over 1100 feet. I am only 17

Edward

February 20th, 2003, 10:07 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/20/nyregion/20BLOC.html

Blight Is Issue at Proposed Home for The Times
By DAVID W. DUNLAP

WELL-REHEARSED drama is a staple of 42nd Street, even in the legal battles that have accompanied each step of its state-sponsored redevelopment.

The acts play out like this: The government condemns properties as blighted. Owners sue, in part for bargaining leverage. The state prevails. Cases are settled. Awards, fees and expenses are paid. Sites are cleared. And new towers emerge

At first, Prof. Marci A. Hamilton of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University, who specializes in constitutional law, said she discerned another "cut-and-dried application of the law" in the case involving owners on the block of Eighth Avenue, between 40th and 41st Streets, whose property has been acquired by New York State to create a development site for The New York Times Company's new headquarters.

But this case differs from earlier battles in that it is being fought at a time when blight and Times Square are no longer synonymous.

Professor Hamilton is persuaded that the case presents an important federal issue and is hoping, against high odds, that the United States Supreme Court will agree to hear the matter, which it is expected to review soon.

"The real question is: can a government take private property for the benefit of other private owners when the blight findings they're relying on are done after the decision to take the property?" Professor Hamilton said.

By that, she meant that the official determination of blight was issued in November 2001, after a tentative agreement reached by the Empire State Development Corporation with the Times Company and its development partner, Forest City Ratner Companies. Earlier blight findings, she said, were of questionable relevance since they were in some cases almost 20 years old.

Professor Hamilton argued in her petition to the Supreme Court that federal and state courts were split on whether the constitutional requirement of a public purpose for the taking of property could be satisfied by blight findings that were, in essence, a pretext for economic development plans.

Her clients are Sidney, Markus and Joseph Orbach, brothers and partners in Three O Realty, who owned a 110,000-square-foot office building at 265 West 40th Street that the state condemned in August, along with 10 other properties, to create a development site for The Times. Their tenants included a Donna Karan Home showroom and the richly stocked B &amp; J Fabrics store. "This whole 16-story building — they offered $7 million," Markus Orbach said. "That's a nice bargain."

And an unconstitutional one, Professor Hamilton said. "The taking was not a taking for the public purpose of removing blight, but solely for the purpose of transferring private property to another, more powerful and `connected' private owner, The New York Times," she said in her petition. In response, Empire State Development dismissed the federal claim as preposterous. "No case has ever held that a pretextual blight finding is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional public use requirement," the state said in its brief, prepared by Carter, Ledyard &amp; Milburn.

And no pretext was involved, state officials argued. "Without public intervention, there is no reason to believe blight will cease to exist," they said, meaning prostitution, drug use and loitering; the "shabby gateway" that the buildings present to Times Square; and the general underdevelopment of the block.

"The fact that the project may advance incidental private interests of The New York Times Company and the developer of additional office space is not unlawful and does not detract from its public purpose," the state said.

As for the Orbachs' building, the state said that even if "isolated pockets" of the block were not blighted, the whole site was.

Speaking for the Times Company, Catherine Mathis said yesterday: "The courts have repeatedly upheld, as recently as last year, the state's determination that the area is blighted. We believe that our proposed new headquarters will significantly enhance the area."

HAVING prevailed in state courts, Empire State Development is now clearing the block. Sussex House, a private 140-bed dormitory at 260 West 41st Street, has already closed. Officials say that residents received relocation payments and the owner accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement.

From the building at Eighth Avenue and 40th Street, the Taylor Business Institute and the SAE Institute of Technology have found new quarters, said Michael Rikon of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon &amp; Gottlieb, which represents eight owners and 37 businesses, none of which have yet settled their claims. Arnold Hatters, the most distinctive store on the block, is searching for space it can afford, Mr. Rikon said, but has not found anything.

The Donna Karan showroom will be moving and B &amp; J Fabrics will have a new home nearby on Seventh Avenue after 48 years in the Orbachs' building.

As they watched their property empty, the Orbachs reflected on their efforts not long ago to renovate it and build up its tenancy. "Besides the money," Sidney Orbach said, "we invested an awful lot of ourselves."

NoyokA

February 20th, 2003, 09:27 PM

NYTIMES and Hearst Magazine Tower should rise together, a few blocks apart. Personally I am a bigger fan of Hearst.

DominicanoNYC

February 20th, 2003, 09:42 PM

I can't wait to see the NY Times Tower rise. It's a great piece of architecture.

Anonymous

February 22nd, 2003, 01:17 PM

When is construction slated to begin? *I love the plans for this building. *Although by a technicality, it will be NY's number 2. *

Gulcrapek

February 22nd, 2003, 05:55 PM

I might have heard construction will begin early 2004, maybe I'm wrong.

This is a wonderful building. It'll introduce something completely new to the city while sticking to the basic shapes of the old. Like others, I'd be fine with an extra hundred feet to rooftop, but it's just fine the way it is to me.

TomAuch

February 22nd, 2003, 06:02 PM

It's an interesting building, considering what the Times has done to eliminate it's competition.
Notice how they talk down Lower Manhattan's economy (they claim there is 17 Million sqf. of office space vacant, but only 11.9 Million is listed as "available" while 8-9 million are actually vacant) To prevent anything from getting built in Lower Manhattan.
They would stand to loose a lot of money if the WTC was rebuilt, especially with tall towers. Did anyone read that NYTime's article on Louis Epstein back in November? Noticed how the coverage was very slanted. *

Kris

February 22nd, 2003, 06:30 PM

You really have to be a sucker to believe that idiotic plot theory made up by the Post.

While the NY Post does write some articles specifically to attack their competitors, this particular arguement about the Times actually has teeth. BTW, the Post didn't say that only 8-9 Million sqf. of space was vacant, Insignia/ESG published the report recently. And why is it that the NYTimes articles are so slanted towards doom and gloom for Lower Manhattan, while recently, they also ran an article promoting Midtown. They talk about how there is a "glut" of office space in Lower Manhattan, but hardly mention the economic reallities regarding their tower. They're also defending Forest City Ratner, which is helping the Times build their tower. *They write articles praising Ratner's projects (like the Metrotech complex in Brooklyn) at the expense of Ratner's competitors.

Kris

February 22nd, 2003, 06:57 PM

That must explain why the Times sponsored a study project for Downtown titled "Thinking Big" and published an article about the rebuilding titled "Rediscovering and Celebrating the Vertical Life", for instance.

1 Bryant Park (equal height to Conde Nast?) is supposed to rise in 2005. *Just imagine the Hudson River view with the Conde Nast, 1 Bryant Park, and NY Times Tower.

TomAuch

February 23rd, 2003, 01:30 AM

Quote: from Christian Wieland on 5:57 pm on Feb. 22, 2003
That must explain why the Times sponsored a study project for Downtown titled "Thinking Big" and published an article about the rebuilding titled "Rediscovering and Celebrating the Vertical Life", for instance.

Of course Muschamp's project from September was a big joke, and the current plans are bullshit too. Notice that most of the nine LMDC design finalists worked with Muschamp, including members of the THINK team. He's also been criticized for being too close with the THINK team. Why else would he praise a plan that will never get built in NYC? While Muschamp has endorsed THINK, everyone else at the paper has endorsed Libeskind, most noticably the editorial board.

BTW, does anyone have any renderings of One Bryant Park? There arn't any pics of it on your regular website, only pics of the construction site.

Bennie B

March 22nd, 2003, 12:15 PM

Court Rejects Challenge To Times Building
By David W. Dunlap (NYT)

The United States Supreme Court declined yesterday, without comment, to hear challenges by four landowners near Times Square that their properties were unconstitutionally condemned to make way for the new headquarters building planned by The New York Times Company. *The Empire State Development Corporation, a state development agency, had condemned 11 properties on Eighth Avenue and on 40th and 41st Streets to make a site to be leased to the Times Company and Forest City Ratner Companies. *Three owners, including West 41st Street Realty, said the state effectively prevented them from developing their property. *The other owner, Three O Realty, said the state's finding of blight was merely a pretext. *Charles A. Gargano, chairman of the development corporation, said yesterday that the state used its condemnation power ''to improve areas of our city where the majority of the public benefits.''
Published: 02 - 25 - 2003

http://www.skyscrapers.com/files/transfer/6/2002/12/173295.jpg

anyone know if they've started excavating?

(Edited by Bennie B at 11:18 am on Mar. 22, 2003)

Zoe

March 22nd, 2003, 03:17 PM

No, the old buildings are still standing and still have tenants in them. *I would love to see the above picture with the Milstein and Times Square Tower in it. *Anyone have a picture like that?

Fabb

March 22nd, 2003, 06:23 PM

The other owner, Three O Realty, said the state's finding of blight was merely a pretext.

I believe him.
But he should be proud to be sacrificed for the beauty of Manhattan.

Kris

March 22nd, 2003, 06:58 PM

Our own cynical esthete.

Eugenius

March 24th, 2003, 11:37 AM

Quote: from Zoe on 2:17 pm on Mar. 22, 2003
No, the old buildings are still standing and still have tenants in them. *I would love to see the above picture with the Milstein and Times Square Tower in it. *Anyone have a picture like that?
I'd imagine that now that there is no place else to appeal (Nothing above the Supreme Court), the construction should start any day now.

yanni111

April 3rd, 2003, 02:07 PM

i walked past the NY Times site today and saw that the discount clothing store on the south corner on 8th ave had huge signs across its front saying, "Going out of business sale, after 18 years, building being demolished" Also the surface parking lot and the elevated 5 story parking garage have been completely emptied and the gates are locked. So it looks like the Supreme Court decision closed the deal.

Fabb

April 3rd, 2003, 03:32 PM

Good.
Hopefully, cranes will be busy before long.

AJphx

April 4th, 2003, 01:47 AM

Three owners, including West 41st Street Realty, said the state effectively prevented them from developing their property.

- What are they saying? They made plans to develop AFTER they were condemned, then were prevented? That doesn't seem like a convincing arguement, or am I missing something?

The heralded Symphony Center project in Midtown will get off the ground early next year with the tallest office tower built in Atlanta in more than 10 years.

Development firm Hines plans to build a 41-story tower at Symphony Center that will contain 625,000 square feet of office space.

The building, designed by Jon Pickard of Pickard Chilton, would have the stature of a much taller office building, said Bob Voyles, a senior vice president who heads Hines' Southeast region.

Hines is moving forward with plans after reaching an agreement with law firm King &amp; Spalding, which plans to lease about 400,000 square feet at the tower. Hines will file plans for the building with Atlanta officials Thursday and expects to complete the King &amp; Spalding lease within 45 days, Voyles said.

Construction would start early next year, and King &amp; Spalding would move from 191 Peachtree Tower around April 1, 2006.

Hines' decision to move forward with the $125 million office project, even with an anchor tenant in tow, is risky.

Atlanta's overall economy and job market continue to struggle, and projections for a turnaround have been pushed backed several times. As a result, dozens of office buildings across the metro area sit with financially dangerous amounts of empty space.

The Midtown office market has been hit particularly hard because it has not been able to replace technology and telecom companies that folded in the past couple of years. Midtown's overall office vacancy increased to 25.5 percent last year, ranking it as the area's weakest behind north Fulton County, according to Cushman &amp; Wakefield, the real estate firm that represents King &amp; Spalding.

But Hines is confident Midtown's current oversupply of office space will be filled by the time it opens the tower at Symphony Center in 36 months. Hines already is meeting with prospective tenants, said John Heagy, a Hines vice president.

"This is a unique building," Heagy said. "The connection it has to the symphony will, in and of itself, draw a lot of prospects to the building."

The as-yet-unnamed tower would be the first phase of the Symphony Center project proposed for Peachtree and 14th streets on six acres owned by the Woodruff Arts Center. Hines has contracted to buy about two of the acres for its building at a price that would cover a substantial portion of investment Woodruff made when it acquired the land for a new symphony hall two years ago, Voyles said.

The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra plans to open its new hall in 2008.

"The building will work with or without the Symphony," Voyles said. "It's a better building with it."

Hines' project would be connected to the new symphony hall building by a 1.5-acre plaza area that would become "a major public space" shared with other office properties including Promenade II, Voyles said.

King &amp; Spalding has been downtown since it was founded in 1885, but a Midtown location, the Symphony Center and the chance for brand-new, efficient space proved tempting enough to leave.

"We are very proud to play a supporting role in the development of the Symphony Center project and this vibrant cultural hub in Atlanta," said Walt Driver, managing partner. "We are committed to participate fully in the Atlanta community, and being part of a project that will benefit both the business and arts communities is an exciting prospect for us."

When it opens, the 650-foot office tower would be the tallest office building erected in Atlanta since the 1,023-foot Bank of America Plaza and 871-foot SunTrust Plaza opened in 1992.

"We want a building that will have a very strong vertical lift to it," Voyles said. "Our building is a free-standing statement, but it respects the architectural vernacular of the hall."

Hines needs a special administrative permit to build the tower. It also plans to file for a permit to remove two American linden, or basswood, trees for the project.

The plans would be subject to the review by the Atlanta Regional Commission and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority because the project would qualify as a development of regional impact.

King &amp; Spalding would occupy the building's top 14 floors and have options to expand.

The office floors would sit atop 12 levels of parking. The parking deck would have spaces for street-level retail and restaurants.

King &amp; Spalding would leave downtown just as the area gains momentum from the Georgia Aquarium, scheduled to open in 2005 just north of Centennial Olympic Park.

Some with downtown interests expressed disappointment at the prospect of losing the venerable law firm.

"They're making a very, very foolish mistake," said Richard Bowers, a downtown booster and developer who owns the 260 Peachtree office tower.

Look familiar????????

NoyokA

April 7th, 2003, 03:53 PM

NYTIMES doubled there...lame.

Kris

April 7th, 2003, 04:31 PM

They often make weak copies in the provinces.

Fabb

April 7th, 2003, 05:14 PM

At least they won't have a heated debate over the spire.
Are we sure the Atlanta version was designed after that of the NY Times ?

NoyokA

April 7th, 2003, 05:26 PM

no.....

Im sure, Pritzker Prize winner Renzo Piano copied the very corporate designs of the world famous Jon Pickard.... only transfiguring the corporate identity, to that of quality.

This imitation is lame. Materials set aside, this is the NYTIMES tower just doubled, nothing simplistic, no clean lines. This building sucks...

Fabb

April 7th, 2003, 05:42 PM

Jon Pickard will never forgive you.

NoyokA

April 7th, 2003, 06:06 PM

good, he sucks too...

Kris

April 7th, 2003, 08:26 PM

Quote: from Fabb on 4:14 pm on April 7, 2003
At least they won't have a heated debate over the spire.
I don't think there are that many out there with such concerns.

Fabb

April 8th, 2003, 04:17 AM

I meant, among skyscraper fans.
The other ones don't know what they're talking about. They'll buy anything they read or hear.

ZippyTheChimp

April 8th, 2003, 09:20 AM

Quote: from Christian Wieland on 3:31 pm on April 7, 2003
They often make weak copies in the provinces.

The provinces. :)

Fabb

April 8th, 2003, 09:27 AM

... he said, with a touch of contempt.

ZippyTheChimp

April 8th, 2003, 10:18 AM

It reminded me of my history with Atlanta in the early 90s.

Nothern visitors were referred to as Yankees and Damn Yankees. When asked the difference, the reply was,
"The Yankees go back home."

enzo

April 10th, 2003, 03:25 PM

LOL.
Atlanta has always longed to be like NYC. I was a little suprised at this particular rip-off though, usually they like to copy buildings from the 20's and 30's!

Quote: from enzo on 2:25 pm on April 10, 2003
LOL.
Atlanta has always longed to be like NYC. I was a little suprised at this particular rip-off though, usually they like to copy buildings from the 20's and 30's!

Hey Charlotte has a couple of real enchilladas
http://www.skyscraperpicture.com/charlotte29.JPG

NyC MaNiAc

April 10th, 2003, 11:36 PM

Wow, that sure does look like the real 60 Wall Street down in Mexico. I like how they changed the top a little though. Still, a blatant rip-off.

AJphx

April 11th, 2003, 07:00 AM

What is the purpose of the low-rise portion of the NYT tower? From pictures it looks like they are going to have to demolish a rather tall(comparetively) building(s) in that place.
http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/images/ny_times_tower_8th_41st_8dec_s.jpg
http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/images/ny_times_tower_40th_8dec_s.jpg
although, from these pics, I can't really tell if the taller brown buildings are on the site or not.

(Edited by AJphx at 6:02 am on April 11, 2003)

Eugenius

April 11th, 2003, 10:31 AM

Yeah, B&amp;J Fabrics has to go. *I think that they are actually going to demolish a 16-storie building as part of the process.

dbhstockton

April 11th, 2003, 01:57 PM

The newsroom, a courtyard, and an auditorium are going to be in the low-rise portion of the tower. *The larger footpint also allows them to make the building taller, in accordance with zoning and architectural practices (more light and air, etc.).

Derek2k3

April 18th, 2003, 12:54 AM

RPWF updated their site nicely and there are some pictures of the NYT Bldg..

\http://194.185.232.3/works/064/index.asp

Bennie B

April 18th, 2003, 01:09 AM

Now THAT'S a highrise.
http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/25big.jpg

http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/34big.jpg
The ceramic tubes...suppose they were flourescent lights and did a little light show at night.

(Edited by Derek2k3 at 4:56 pm on April 18, 2003)

dbhstockton

April 18th, 2003, 02:40 PM

Those models compare it to ESB, Chrystler Bldg, and the other Times Square towers.

Gulcrapek

April 18th, 2003, 02:44 PM

I absolutely positively cannot wait..

Kris

April 18th, 2003, 04:47 PM

The statement:

Each architecture tells a story, and the story this building proposes is one of lightness and transparency. While designing a tower fulfils the greatest challenge in the upward reach, it also contributes a presence in the skyline that is both vibrant and changing with the winds.

The 52-storey building’s basic shape is simple, primary, similarly to the Manhattan grid. It is slender, does not use mirrored or tinted glass which render towers mysterious and hermetic subjects. On the contrary, the use of clear glass combined with a pattern of thin ceramic cylinders placed on a steel framework, positioned one to two feet in front of the glass, from bottom to top. This curtain wall will permit a high degree of energy efficiency in heating and cooling the building, and will make it get a different color, according to the atmosphere: bluish after the rain, shimmering red at sunset.

For vertical circulation, in addition to 28 elevators, people will use stairs located on the side facades, whose flow will be visible from outside. This is only appropriate, as it is from the street itself that the newspaper metaphorically gathers its inspiration.

Another notable feature is that the lobby of the building is very open, transparent and permeable. At ground level, a large internal garden will be accessible to all, visible from the street, thereby creating multiple transparencies throughout the block from 40th to 41st streets. The lobby will also include a semi-public auditorium, restaurants and shops at that level, in its desire to participate in the street’s everyday life.

The idea to install a roof garden, which is in consideration, would be the opposite of that on the ground floor. While the ground level of the building engages the street and its daily rites, the roof garden would be a place of silence and contemplation. The meeting rooms at this level would give an enjoyable panorama of New York City through a glass and ceramic screen, that would shelter the garden from the winds.

The New York Times is a news factory, the newsroom (located in the “podium”, the base of the tower) being the real machine plant for the entire system. It will occupy the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors, overlooking the surrounding streets like a magic lantern, continually lit and constantly active.

On all other floors, work conditions have guided our design: transparency, flexibility, ease of movement between floors, while privileging the sense of community and guaranteeing privacy. The tower would reach a height of 748 feet, and a mast on the roof would bring it up to 1,140 feet.

Fabb

April 18th, 2003, 05:26 PM

For vertical circulation, in addition to 28 elevators, people will use stairs located on the side facades

I really like that.
But it also means fewer offices with a view.

NoyokA

April 19th, 2003, 12:47 AM

so instead of a single occupant stealing the view...

NoyokA

April 20th, 2003, 07:31 PM

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid60/p48e0429bce3c10172d7433b94afdaacd/fc4e63a9.jpg
After 18 long years of buisness, closing, finally.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid60/p8469d69250d9057b691d9f3ed392b002/fc4e6134.jpg
Another welcome sight, among the last of TXSQ's sex buisnesses closing, several vacating here.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid60/p7219aa49ffee66e7cce08b7cc89dd041/fc4e612d.jpg
Behind the fences, a miniature ghost town, the last dormant site among the hustle of TXSQ.

Farewell to the surface parking, the porno, and welcoming the next coming attraction.

Kris

April 20th, 2003, 07:47 PM

It's heartbreaking, but life goes on.

NoyokA

April 20th, 2003, 07:48 PM

lol...very good Christian.

But is there something as too much sarcasm?

Kris

April 20th, 2003, 07:55 PM

I don't know. Let's make a survey.

Derek2k3

April 30th, 2003, 10:22 PM

from \http://enr.construction.com/features/buildings/archives/030210.asp

http://enr.construction.com/images/030210-29A.jpg
ELABORATE SCREEN Mockups of the New York Times building's ceramic rod "veil" informed the curtain wall bid documents. (Photo courtesy of Benson)

http://enr.construction.com/images/030210-26A.jpg
They also talk about a hypothetical 150 story tower for New York.

Although glass curtain walls are becoming more and more thermally efficient," says Gregory Kiss, a founder of Kiss + Cathcart Architects, Brooklyn, the goal of creating an energy-conserving facade is one of "diminishing returns." His firm has designed a hypothetical 150-story tower to be built in New York City in 2020 with a skin that would be a source of power. The structure, clad entirely in photovoltaic (PV) panels, would generate 60% of the building's electricity requirements. Wind turbines enclosed in PV louvers would supply the rest.

Although the 2020 tower may seem more like a fantastic vision, Kiss maintains that photovoltaic technology "is ready for prime time." Even now, the least-expensive building-integrated panels cost about $12 per sq ft. "There are many more expensive cladding materials," he says. And despite the fact that many recent high-profile projects use PVs to generate only a small portion of their total power requirements, building-integrated photovoltaics could be common-place in three to five years, he predicts. "The number-one limitation is education," Kiss says. Click here to view rendering.

Fabb

May 1st, 2003, 06:30 AM

I guess the PV panels wouldn't generate much electricity on cloudy days, or during winter when luminosity is weak and demand is high.
Well, if it helps build a 150-story building, then OK, I believe them.

Kris

May 5th, 2003, 10:49 PM

The recent destruction of the World Trade Center in New York casts an ominous shadow on high-rises everywhere, especially those that aspire to landmark status. Earlier this year, well before the tragic events of September 11, Record's editor Robert Ivy spoke with Renzo Piano at his glazed-roofed offices overlooking the Ligurian Sea outside of Genoa. Although the topic of terrorism and its impact on skyscraper design did not arise, Piano discussed his views on building in New York, his approach to design, the problem of urban sprawl, and the role of memory in architecture. What follows are excerpts from that interview.

Architectural Record: You have worked in many great cities in the world—Berlin, Paris, Turin, Osaka—and now you are designing projects for New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. Do you think it's going to be hard to achieve what you want in a city like Manhattan, which has the reputation of being a tough place to build?

Renzo Piano: This is what architecture is about. Architecture is not an art independent from reality. Real architecture, real painting, real poetry, real music is never detached from physicality. In architecture, that’s it. Architecture is at the edge, between art and anthropology, between society and science, technology and history. Sometimes memory, too, plays a part. Architecture is about illusion and symbolism, semantics, and the art of telling stories. It’s a funny mixture of these things. Sometimes it’s humanistic and sometimes it’s materialistic.

AR: So you’re not worried about working with tough New York developers on a project like the New York Times Tower?

RP: No. Of course they are developers. But what is wrong with that? In some ways the best client is a tough client who knows what he wants. That doesn’t mean you give the client exactly what he wants. You are responsible for doing your job well. But a good building needs a good program. I don’t think there is one single good building without a good plan. It’s impossible. Certainly you need a good architect, but that’s not enough.

AR: You have studied ceramics and tiles more than most contemporary architects. How will you use them in New York?

RP: Ceramics are metamorphic materials. They have a great ability to bleach and change, to echo the weather. For me, the most beautiful quality of Manhattan is its ability to change with atmospheric changes. One of the most poetic views of Manhattan is of its forest of buildings as they take the quality of the weather. New York is a peculiar place because it’s very hard, very tough when you touch the ground. It’s made of stone and steel. But as soon as you break from the ground and go up, you can see it’s one of the softest cities in the world.

AR: What will the New York Times building do to advance your thoughts and work? Where is it going?

RP: This is exactly the question we ask each time. We are lucky to be able to decide what projects we want to do—not because we are snobs but because we are in a lucky position. Let’s talk about expression in architecture. I like fighting gravity. Magic is essential in architecture. Working in Manhattan, I love the idea that we accept the clear and simple geometry of a building. We accept that logic. But complexity comes from texture, from vibration, from the metamorphic capacity of the building to transform, to change, to breathe. Sometimes buildings even make sounds. You know, in New Caledonia we learned from the local culture that buildings sing. And we were actually able to do that, to make our building [the J.M. Tjibaou Cultural Centre in Nouvéa] make a sound when the wind blows. So the complexity doesn’t necessarily come from geometrical complexity. The building is actually very simple. But the complexity comes from the skin, the surface of the building actually vibrating, working with the weather. In Manhattan, I think the Times building will be tough when it touches the ground and then become more light, more vibrant, more metamorphic as it disappears in the clouds. I’m working on the idea of putting a garden on the roof, so there’s a garden in the sky. On the street level there will be a lot of activity: a small auditorium, a small museum for the Times collection of pictures and documents, shops—lots of street life.

AR: Your work often centers on complex issues that are resolved simply. Can you explain your approach to design?

RP: I came to architecture as the son of a builder, so when I was a young architect I was devoted to developing objects. I was attracted to the physicality. The piece-by-piece approach was essential to me. Then I began to understand that this is not enough. Architecture is more than just putting things together. It’s about the organic, about illusions, a sense of memory, and a textural approach. I must admit, though, that I still love the idea of putting parts together. That is why my office is called the Building Workshop. I love the idea that you go from the general to the detail and then from the detail to the general. It’s a double process. You cannot think about the presence of the building in the city without thinking about materiality. And when you think about materiality, you start to think about detail.

AR: There is a lot of talk about architecture becoming virtual. What is the role of the computer in architecture today?

RP: The computer is essential. When you make a building like, for example, Kansai Airport in Osaka [RECORD, JULY 1994, Pacific Rim section, page 26], you need a computer to optimize everything—the structure, the form. You know, computers are getting so clever that they seem a bit like those pianos where you push a button and it plays the cha-cha and then a rumba. You may play very badly, but you feel like a great pianist. The same is true now in architecture. You may find yourself in the position where you feel like you’re pushing buttons and able to build everything. But architecture is about thinking. It’s about slowness in some way. You need time. The bad thing about computers is that they make everything run very fast, so fast that you can have a baby in nine weeks instead of nine months. But you still need nine months, not nine weeks, to make a baby.

AR: Let’s jump around a little here. What do you think of the role of the architect in today’s world? Where do we stand as a group?

RP: This touches on the ethics of the profession and how we go about our work. Can I confess one thing? I take pleasure in what I do. Pleasure is one of the most important things. You may say this is selfish. It is not selfish.

AR: When you accepted the Pritzker Prize in 1998, you described architects and yourself as explorers. Do you take an idea or a line and rework it or are you always looking for the new?

RP: I think it’s important to note the difference between style and coherence. If you’re talking about coherence, I love it. If you’re talking about style, then I start to be more suspicious. Coherence is about the experience, about using what you’ve been learning and reapplying it. It’s not about making yourself recognizable. But architecture is necessarily about exploring. Every place is different, every client is different, every society is different. Culturally, historically, psychologically, anthropologically, and topographically, every job is different. So the real risk is that as an architect you end up imposing your stamp before you understand what is the reality of a place. I never take a new job without visiting the place, without trying to understand, without trying to get a basic, fundamental emotion. Because that’s what it’s all about—building emotion. I try to understand what is the real nature of a place, what is the context. My goal is not necessarily to integrate with the context. Sometimes architecture should not integrate but should make a contribution to the context.

AR: Do you ever worry that you won’t find the genius of a project or make it work?

RP: Oh, yes, you worry about that. And the next thing you worry about is staying on track, because architecture is a very long, complex process. There are two things I worry about. In the beginning, it’s finding the emotion, the basic emotion. But then, you need to find the direction and stay with it for sometimes five or six or more years.

AR: Tell us a little about how your firm operates. What is your role here?

RP: One of my favorite roles, though not necessarily the main one, is spending time—my colleagues might say losing my time—in the model-maker’s shop. I love watching things and touching. If you look around my workplace here, I have all my small working models on the wall. What I do is mentally I touch each one. They’re like my children, and I go and touch each one to understand what is going on.

AR: You’ve spent a lot of your career working on cities such as Genoa and Berlin. What is the state of the contemporary city today?

RP: Right now I’m working with Milan, helping it plan its peripheries. This is going to be one of the biggest challenges in the next 50 years. How do we transform the periphery? It’s not just about form, it’s about content. The real trouble is that these urban peripheries are monofunctional, they’re all about just one mode—production or business or housing. But after the city’s big explosion, now we’re seeing it start to implode. I like the idea that sustainable growth is about implosion not explosion.

AR: There are some architects who have made careers of mostly talk.

RP: Yes, there’s nothing wrong about that. But for me, I prefer to build.

Piano comments on the WTC disaster

In an interview published in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on September 21, Piano spoke about skyscraper design in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks.

When asked “Is it possible to build safer skyscrapers?” he replied, “We already know how to build skyscrapers that can resist earthquakes. Now we must devise ways to protect buldings from the kind of fires that occurred at the twin towers. The necessary technology exists and is employed at offshore oil-drilling platforms where protective coatings such as polypropylene fibers are used. There’s a need to rethink security systems and make fire egress easier.”

Asked what should be built on the WTC site, Piano said, “Whatever is built, there should first be a great deal of thought and reflection. It’s not only an economic issue but a cultural one. What is at stake is saving the soul of a city, its spirit.”

I’m working on the idea of putting a garden on the roof, so there’s a garden in the sky.
It would hardly be visible from the street. But what a magical place for the lucky few.

(about the WTC site) It’s not only an economic issue but a cultural one.
Thanks Renzo.

(Edited by Fabb at 2:49 am on May 6, 2003)

Kris

May 7th, 2003, 10:59 AM

JM, do you still have the renderings you scanned for the old forum? If so, could you please post them again?

JMGarcia

May 7th, 2003, 11:59 AM

I still have them but they are not on-line. I'll try to find space to upload them later and post them.

Kris

May 7th, 2003, 05:55 PM

Thanks, I appreciate it.

NoyokA

May 7th, 2003, 06:58 PM

Christian I have both renderings at my website.

maxinmilan

May 7th, 2003, 07:14 PM

Piano and Rossi were (I use 'were' cos Rossi dead in a car crash probably drunk) the biggest italian architect. Rossi has designed in NYC that masterpiece which is the Scholastic bldg in SoHo). Piano is very elegant and has got a very deep sense of proportions and details: I'm sure his NYTimes bldg will have a strong presence in the NYC skyline and will probably considered the new Seagram bldg. Lightness and absence of gravity will be the most evident typology of this project. I like them.

recently signs saying "going ut of business sale" were put up in front of the porn dvd/video store and the peepshow on the site. After those two close the only stores left open on the site will be a hat store and a small deli on the corner. I wonder what the final date is for everyone to leave the property.

DominicanoNYC

June 17th, 2003, 12:11 PM

Is there going to be an observation deck?

TLOZ Link5

June 17th, 2003, 06:15 PM

I doubt it. *The garden might not be open to the public, except possibly on special occasions. *The roof isn't really high enough to be used as a good observatory, anyway.

James Kovata

June 17th, 2003, 09:47 PM

What's going on with this building? *Is there an start date for building? *Or are the developers waiting for another large leasee other than the Times?

But I'd love to work there. Any place without cubicles is good for me.

ZippyTheChimp

June 21st, 2003, 09:16 PM

Ghost writers

Zoe

July 2nd, 2003, 12:33 AM

I dropped by the SAE school today and they told me that they are starting their move soon (one of the last remaining tenants). *They will be completely out of the building by the end of August and moving into Herald Square. *So we could start to see the site cleared in either September or October. *There looks to only be the hat shop and one porno shop remaining on the 8th avenue side.

he New York Times Company's development partner in building the newspaper's new headquarters on Eighth Avenue has asked city officials for $400 million in tax-exempt bonds that were designated for rebuilding New York after the attack on the World Trade Center.

The developer, Forest City Ratner, has told city and state officials that it needs the special federal financing, known as Liberty Bonds, because it is nearly impossible in the current economic environment to obtain a conventional construction loan for its portion of the planned 52-story tower on Eighth Avenue, between 40th and 41st Streets.

A spokesman for the Times Company noted that the newspaper would not benefit directly from the bonds. But some critics questioned whether a project in Midtown, which embraces some of the most valuable real estate in the world, should receive another round of subsidies.

The federal government provided up to $8 billion in Liberty Bonds in 2002 as part of an initiative to provide tax-exempt financing for major projects to revitalize Lower Manhattan in the wake of the September 2001 attack. The legislation for the bonds set aside up to $1.6 billion for residential projects downtown and up to $2 billion for commercial projects outside Lower Manhattan.

The Times and Forest City reached an agreement with city officials more than two years ago to build the Eighth Avenue skyscraper as part of a deal in which the newspaper got $26.1 million in sales tax breaks and other subsidies.

Under the terms of their partnership, The Times will own the 2nd through 27th floors of the tower, totaling about 875,000 square feet, while Forest City Ratner will own the upper floors, 725,000 square feet. With millions of square feet of vacant space in Midtown Manhattan today, Forest City has been unable to find a tenant for its space, making it difficult to secure financing.

Bruce Ratner, chief executive of Forest City Ratner, declined to comment on the application yesterday. The partners are scheduled to take possession of the land for the project at the end of August and to begin demolition immediately. The tower should be completed in the third quarter of 2006, about a year behind schedule.

Michael Golden, vice chairman and senior vice president of the Times Company, said the Liberty Bonds would be a valuable investment for the city. The Times, he added, would not be involved in the bond financing. He said the original deal for the project was drawn up several years ago amid a real estate boom. "The real estate world has changed," he said. "There's a lot more space out there. I think anything the city and state can do to make the development of this office building happen is a legitimate expenditure. It's a good thing for the city to have this building go up."

Bettina Damiani, project director of Good Jobs New York, an advocacy group that evaluates economic projects, disagreed, saying the city had already struck a deal for the Times project that required The Times and the developer to proceed.

"It's disappointing," she said. "They're certainly taking advantage of everything that's out there. But the whole point of the Liberty Bonds was to rebuild downtown and create back-office space in Brooklyn and Queens so companies don't flee to Jersey. It wasn't about Midtown."

Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff confirmed yesterday that the city had received an application from Forest City Ratner. He declined to discuss the specifics of the proposal, but he did say that the city would employ two criteria in evaluating its merits: whether the project has boroughwide or citywide importance, and whether the project would not be built without Liberty Bond financing.

Like Forest City, the developer Douglas Durst hopes to get tax-exempt financing for a Midtown project. He wants $700 million in Liberty Bonds to build a two-million-square-foot tower with Bank of America at 42nd Street and the Avenue of the Americas.

City and state officials have approved a number of residential projects, but there have been few commercial applicants because of corporate layoffs and an anemic economy. The developer Larry A. Silverstein has received tentative approval for $400 million in Liberty Bonds to rebuild the skyscraper at 7 World Trade Center, and Forest City Ratner received approval for $113 million in bonds to build an office building for Bank of New York at Atlantic Center in Brooklyn.

Fabb

July 17th, 2003, 03:55 PM

The tower should be completed in the third quarter of 2006, about a year behind schedule.

If that's the only delay, it will be OK, but... Forest City has been unable to find a tenant for its space. That's worrisome.

Freedom Tower

July 17th, 2003, 05:29 PM

Has construction begun yet?

Fabb

July 17th, 2003, 05:56 PM

That would be great, but no.

The partners are scheduled to take possession of the land for the project at the end of August and to begin demolition immediately.

James Kovata

August 7th, 2003, 09:55 AM

Any new news on this project? *

JACKinNYC

August 7th, 2003, 11:57 AM

Quote: from Derek2k3 on 12:04 am on June 21, 2003
http://images3.fotki.com/v29/free/fbdd1/3/39399/245775/orkTimesTower65RPBWArteFactory-or.jpg
Rendering by ArteFactory \http://www.arte-factory.com
Renzo Piano Building Workshop

That's a really annoying website.

NYguy

August 20th, 2003, 08:39 AM

Here's a look at the site as of Sunday (8/17/03). *Demolition is supposed to begin by September...

NEW YORK CITY-"It's now time to begin," CBRE's Mary Ann Tighe, CEO, New York Metro Region, told the crowd at RealShare New York, when she revealed that she had just received word that morning from New York State officials that the condemnation was complete for the Eighth Avenue site proposed to be the new home of the New York Times.

Tighe was speaking about deals that were meaningful to her and mentioned that the process for this endeavor began in 1995. "I like transformation deals--deals that change the landscape," she said.

Tighe and Gregory Tosko of Insignia/ESG with Timothy Dempsey won the Real Estate Board’s Henry Hart Rice Most Ingenious Deal of the Year Award for the development of The New York Times’ proposed 52-story headquarters.

When the New York Times moved its presses to Queens in the mid-1990s, the company’s leaders began to consider transferring the newspaper’s editorial and administrative offices from its current headquarters on 43rd Street to a new facility that would require less maintenance and offer a more efficient workplace.

The Rice award winners designed a transaction that will produce a distinctive building that satisfies the Times’ objectives. The brokers also structured a partnership with developer Forest City Ratner that will give the Times opportunities to expand within its new, partially speculative building.

RealShare New York was produced by Real Estate Media Inc., parent company of GlobeSt.com.

James Kovata

September 18th, 2003, 09:01 AM

PROGRESS.... If the NYT Tower is complete in 2006 and the Freedom Tower (don't like the name...sounds corny) is topped out in 2006, the skyline, combined with a finished Blooberg Tower, will look very different than it does today!

BrooklynRider

September 18th, 2003, 02:50 PM

September 2003 NY Construction News

Designing the New York Times
Steel Grid Visible Inside and Out

By Amy Choi

At a news organization, truth is the top priority.

The design of a signature, headquarters property for The New York Times Co., one of the most prominent news organizations in the world, required truth as well.

"There are great modern architecture principles of honesty," said Dan Kaplan, senior principal at Fox &amp; Fowle Architects, PC. "It's a celebration of the way things are constructed and turning that into architectural design. For The New York Times, we're putting the structural frame of the building on display."

To execute this vision of honesty, Fox &amp; Fowle worked with world-renowned architect Renzo Piano, who designed the 52-story, 1.54-million-sq.-ft. exposed-steel tower, and the Renzo Piano Building Workshop.

The new development on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets is expected to break ground this fall and be ready for occupancy by summer 2005.

Aesthetically, it will express utility and grace simultaneously. Kaplan likened the exposed-steel idea to a sailboat mast—"It's totally structurally derived, but it's very light and expresses lightness and elegance."

The purity of the material itself was crucial in the design. "The best buildings have a limited palate of materials and systems," said Kaplan. "So in this building, whether it's painted steel, columns on the outside or in the lobby, or a steel storefront, the basic elements (of the building) are all true to the material. Steel becomes one of the integral architectural expressions."

Structural steel is, of course, the most common building material for office buildings in New York City, but it is usually buried by a curtain wall, concrete or façade of some sort. Because each structural piece of steel will be visible in the New York Times building, close attention is being paid to what each member will do and how it appears.

"The main challenge wasn't the steel itself," said Tom Scarangello, managing principal of Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers, the structural engineers on the project. "The challenge was the high degree of visibility the steel was going to have."

Steel helped achieve Piano’s primary design expression – the quality of lightness and fading into the sky as one looks to the upper reaches of the tower, joined with the quality of strength and stability anchoring the tower to the ground.

"There was an extra level of scrutiny and awareness that we had to have on the detailing and the proportioning and connecting of the material to make sure that it met with Renzo's and Fox &amp; Fowler's intent," Scarangello said. "The ability to sculpt steel and turn it into an art on the scale of a building like this couldn't have been done with a concrete system in any way.

"Steel was the only material to go with to have something this inviting that lets in light and air because it's got strength and the ability to form and shape into expressions."
Bob Sanna, executive vice president of design, development and construction at Forest City Ratner Cos., the developer of the property with partner ING Real Estate, added: "We have assembled a kind of erector set that you can look into. It is bridge-like in its beauty."

Retaining the beauty of the exposed steel created some obstacles for the design and engineering teams. Some less complex issues included how to abide by New York City fire codes, which require that all of the steel be fireproofed, while still maintaining the aesthetic qualities of the material. As a result, the steel on the Times building had to be finished with a special paint that can take both cosmetic exterior finishes but can also maintain the fire integrity of the beams.

The structure overall creates a vocabulary of large and small steel columns extending from the 80,000-sq.-ft. footprint to support the vertical and horizontal loads, growing slimmer as they reach higher into the sky. Rather than taking the smaller columns and fitting them with standard available shapes of beams and floorplates as the tower grows higher, the design team took the reduction in size and choreographed it so that the plate sizes drop off in a controlled manner to help create building’s feeling of lightness.

Similar attention was paid to the diagonal tie rods on the upper floors of the building. The rods control the sway of a high-rise tower and make it more comfortable for the occupants, although they do not support the building structurally.

These braces, which are usually hidden in the façade of the building, were exposed on the exterior walls in keeping with the design philosophy of honesty and additionally were kept extremely slender in order to perpetuate the critical feeling of lightness as one looked up the building.

"All of the exposed shapes were shapes that we designed," Scarangello said. "Every connection and member that we chose had to meet the design intent. It was a challenge but it was an enjoyable process because usually the design gets buried, but it'll be great to be able to see a lot of elements."

The exposed steel also played a major role in the design of the interior and ground-floor lobby of the building. The storefront of the property is steel, which is unusual in the United States, and the lobby itself has steel cladding and columns.

"The steel was exposed in the building as well as in the lobby, which was a very deliberate attempt to bring these members in," Sanna said. "You see the very strong grid and the elements from within as well as from outside."

Fabb

September 18th, 2003, 02:58 PM

These braces, which are usually hidden in the façade of the building, were exposed on the exterior walls in keeping with the design philosophy of honesty

Good choice.

ZippyTheChimp

September 18th, 2003, 03:00 PM

It will be interesting to watch this description transformed into a building.

Stick with Piano. What is the saying? Ah yeah!! "You're only as good as your last job." This is one of the last of the larger Piano designs. Aurora Place (Sydney).

It is more than likely of what to expect in finishes with the NY TIMES building as far as the white laminated glass. Also with the predominant staff (approx. 300 ft on Aurora).

Since being completed, this tower is generally well liked (I find the base a little sterile in parts but as a tower, it's great!!).

Although obviously a different shape (and different context), many of the fundmentals will remain (only updated).

http://www.renzopiano.com/works/project52/09.jpg

http://www.skyscrapers.com/files/transfer/6/2002/01/137277.jpg

Chicagoan

September 21st, 2003, 12:14 AM

Yeah I agree. If anyone can get a photo of Debis Tower in Berlin, you can see why expectations should be high. Debis has a stair tower that is pulled off to the side of the building and it is simply exquisite.

I only have high hopes for NYTT.

Fabb

September 21st, 2003, 07:51 AM

Aurora Place offers an interesting preview indeed.
I expect a very different texture though.

Freedom Tower

September 21st, 2003, 09:51 AM

It's ironic. They facade will be see through in order to show how the building is constructed. They said it is because the NY Times values "honesty" in their news reports. Hopefully they've already fired all those reporters that made up false stories. This way it'll have some real meaning and not just be false. This, IMO, is 1000 times cornier than freedom tower. It's cornier because it in itself is a blatant lie. If they value honesty so much they might as well admit they haven't been honest in the past. At least the freedom tower does represent freedom. There is a lot of debate as to whether there is honesty at the NY Times.

With all that said, Im still extremely excited about the project. :lol: Also, I agree with Kovata on one important thing. When the Freedom Tower is done, the NY Times tower is done, and the Bloomberg tower is done, the NYC skyline will look very different. Especially Lower Manhattan, which will look completely different. Let's hope they are all done by 2006 or sooner. But I dont think the Freedom Tower will be done until 2008.

JonY

September 22nd, 2003, 04:16 AM

Aurora Place offers an interesting preview indeed.
I expect a very different texture though.Fabb, If you don't mind me asking, in what sense do expect a very different type of texture?

Aurora Place in Sydney was only completed in 2000.

@ Chicagoan. Here is the only pic of Piano's Debis Tower in Berlin that I could find; completed 1997/1998:

Aurora Place offers an interesting preview indeed.
I expect a very different texture though.Fabb, If you don't mind me asking, in what sense do expect a very different type of texture?

Aurora Place in Sydney was only completed in 2000.

I was refering to the exposed steel and the transparency of the NY Times Tower.
Even though Aurora Place is very beautiful, I have the impression that its texture is more conventional. The top of the building, on the other hand, is of the kind envisioned for LBT and the NYTimes Tower.
Was it the first time Piano tested this elegant solution ?

JMGarcia

September 22nd, 2003, 08:14 AM

Here's is a closeup of the prototype of the facade. These floating louvers that cover the building are what will make is so unusual and textured.

http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/34Big.jpg

JonY

September 22nd, 2003, 10:59 AM

Thanks for your reply Fabb :D

I expect a very different texture though.
"I was refering to the exposed steel and the transparency of the NY Times Tower. Was it the first time Piano tested this elegant solution ?In regard to Aurora Place, I believe so ie. in regard to "testing this elegant soultion", as I previously posted it was his last major project in regard to office buildings."

In regard to the exposed steel rods for the NY Times Tower, I guess this in regard to the last pic post that JM Garcia posted (as you can see by the above Aurora Place [once again only completed 3 years ago] pic posts, the edifice isn't lined with horizontal steel rods):

Posted by JM Garcia: Quote "Here's is a closeup of the prototype of the facade. These floating louvers that cover the building are what will make it so unusual and textured."

http://194.185.232.3/works/064/pictures/34Big.jpg

Kris

September 23rd, 2003, 10:52 AM

September 23, 2003

Land Transfer Is Under Way for Times Site

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

The New York Times Company and its development partner are expected to take control tomorrow of a large parcel on Eighth Avenue, across the street from the Port Authority Bus Terminal, where they plan to build a new 52-story headquarters for the newspaper company.

On Friday, the state's 42nd Street Development Project notified the Times Company and its partner, Forest City Ratner, that it was ready to transfer the land, setting the stage for the demolition of the 11 buildings on the site, between 40th and 41st Streets.

Michele de Milly, a spokeswoman for Forest City, described the land transfer as a crucial step in an important development.

The partners have put down a $20 million nonrefundable deposit and are required by the state to begin construction within a year. But Forest City is still negotiating with city officials for tax-free bonds.

The state has spent the last year relocating some 55 businesses — including trade schools, sex shops, fabric dealers and a hat shop — that once called the block home.

"We're very pleased that all the businesses have been able to find new homes," said Michael Golden, vice chairman and senior vice president of the Times Company, "and glad the project has crossed this milestone.`

Under a deal struck more than two years ago, The Times and Forest City are required to pay the acquisition costs of the land, but are liable only for $85.6 million.

When the tower is completed, the partners will pay about $14 million a year in lieu of taxes. The Times, which will occupy about 875,000 square feet on the lower floors, obtained $26.1 million in tax breaks from the state and the city.

Forest City recently asked the city for $400 million in Liberty Bonds, special tax-free financing, for its share of the skyscraper. But the two sides are still negotiating over the amount, according to people on both sides of the talks. This month, officials offered $100 million, providing that Forest City gave the city a stake in its project. Forest City objected, contending that the city had reneged on a compromise of $150 million.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Kris

September 26th, 2003, 10:54 PM

http://www.meccapixel.com/images/0309/030926_1.jpg

www.meccapixel.com

Kris

September 27th, 2003, 09:12 PM

VictorG has told me that "tomorrow's 60 minutes news program on CBS will have a segment on the Times Tower and how the land was taken." Some of you may be interested.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minutes/main13502.shtml

The 36th season premiere of 60 Minutes will be broadcast Sunday, Sept. 28 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

[...]

In the third story, Correspondent Mike Wallace investigates controversial eminent domain policies, where the government is forcing private citizens to sell homes and businesses in cases that seem to benefit private rather than public interests.

Edward

September 28th, 2003, 11:29 PM

The parking garage will be soon demolished to clear the way for New York Times Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/default.htm). 28 September 2003.

Well sayonara fugly parking station and the peek-a-boo shows that occupy the site. However, are any major art-deco buildings going down under the 'wrecker's ball' so-to-speak for the tower?

JMGarcia

September 29th, 2003, 10:11 AM

There's absolutely nothing of any architectural merit being torn down for the new tower. Its a pretty crappy block all in all.

BrooklynRider

September 29th, 2003, 10:40 AM

There's absolutely nothing of any architectural merit being torn down for the new tower. Its a pretty crappy block all in all.

True, but I think the 60 Minutes spot was a real eye opener. Despite my desire to see new interesting architecture go up, I am appalled at the use of emminent domain to do it. It's abuse of power.

Chicagoan

September 29th, 2003, 11:20 AM

There's absolutely nothing of any architectural merit being torn down for the new tower. Its a pretty crappy block all in all.

True, but I think the 60 Minutes spot was a real eye opener. Despite my desire to see new interesting architecture go up, I am appalled at the use of emminent domain to do it. It's abuse of power.

I agree. I saw the 60 Minutes piece and was appalled myself. The old Renaissance catherdrals in the denser Italian cities were built at the expense of private owners, but that was for the public good. This was the intention of eminent domain. But when it is used to further private interests I do not care what the result.

matt3303

September 29th, 2003, 05:52 PM

I think we all agree that this building is not in the 'public interest'. Still, it'll keep the Times in New York (unlike the Wall Street Journal) and further develop the Times Square area

NoyokA

September 29th, 2003, 08:48 PM

The focus was on Ohio and their mayor was a witch.

The area encompassing Times Square was blighted, does anyone need to be reminded of the prostitutes, pimps, peep shows, and the other unsavory social aspects of 1970's New York City. Time Square redevelopment was extended far beyond Brodway and includes the land where NYTIMES will now rise. If it wasnt for NYTIMES someone else would build there anyways.

It is important that this entire district is extended to the PABT. A few legit. buisnesses, a parking lot, and adult shops in the way of progress, and this is an important final step in the entire TXSQ transformation.

kliq6

September 30th, 2003, 09:54 AM

Since Forest City cant get a tenant for the upper portion of the building and the city wont give this project any Liberty Bonds, i would not expect to see this built anytime soon. I talked to a friend that works for the Architect of this building, they may start demoltion but not construction soon

Freedom Tower

September 30th, 2003, 05:42 PM

They've just given BofA liberty bonds, do you think maybe they'll now give liberty bonds to this construction project?

Fabb

September 30th, 2003, 05:46 PM

That would be fair.

kliq6

September 30th, 2003, 06:09 PM

the head of the IDA at yesterday's BOA meeting said no way that the Times would get the funding. They have already been given massive subsidies and tax breaks and unlike most office developments, the state will turn over the land to Forest city in 10 years and they dont have to pay other taxes on it then.

Freedom Tower

September 30th, 2003, 09:01 PM

Wow, thats amazing that they're gonna have it tax free in 10 years. But do you think with NYTT never paying tax and the UN never paying tax that eventually this will badly impact NYCs economy? I mean if every gets a tax free deal then pretty soon what taxes will they be collecting?

Fabb

October 1st, 2003, 09:21 AM

That's right.
But the top priority is not taxes but jobs. That's what NYC needs right now.

Freedom Tower

October 1st, 2003, 09:22 PM

You're right. I forgot about that. More jobs in NYC would mean more people moving in... then more taxes from residential buildings. Not to mention the taxes on the lunch they eat while working, the transportatoin they pay for (trains, etc.) The jobs will also have the salaries taxed. And it will bring more people into the city. It seems I overlooked something that important. Thanks for reminding me Fabb :). Now I'm going to ponder why I forgot something so basic ;).

Fabb

October 2nd, 2003, 06:12 AM

I hate it when I make people ponder over themselves.
Please Freedom Tower, don't do it !

Freedom Tower

October 2nd, 2003, 04:44 PM

I'm sorry Fabb I believe I've already done the pondering :oops:. But I'm sure you'll be relieved that I at least came up with no reason for my mistake... so the pondering was useless anyway. I shall never ponder about myself again ;)

Fabb

October 2nd, 2003, 06:27 PM

You're done ? Already !
That was fast.
You sure didn't ponder much... OK, how about that : tax breaks for all the new tall buildings in Manhattan (say, over 900 ft).
That could work and help the local economy.

Freedom Tower

October 3rd, 2003, 12:36 PM

Definately. Great idea Fabb! It'll not only improve the economy job-wise in NYC, but the steel industry will get some business too, not to mention architectual firms, etc.! And after all this the skyline will improve with some nice 900+ foot buildings. Fabb, this an ingenious idea. FABB FOR MAYOR! :D

krulltime

October 3rd, 2003, 12:45 PM

I vote for FABB as mayor!!!

Good thinking! :D

Fabb

October 3rd, 2003, 01:37 PM

Stop it !
I can't feel my legs.

kliq6

October 16th, 2003, 04:17 PM

This project will never get built

New York Times Co. delays occupancy for HQ

by Wendy Blake

The New York Times Co. has pushed back the occupancy date for its new headquarters building, because the project’s developer has had delays in getting financing for the project.

The Times Co. said in its earnings release today that it expects to occupy the building in 2006 or 2007, citing delays on the part of developer Forest City Ratner in securing backing. It had previously targeted 2006 as the occupancy date. Forest City has been seeking authorization from the city for $400 million in tax-exempt Liberty Bonds to help pay for the 52-story, Times Square-area skyscraper, but the city has balked at disbursing that much.

Forest City could not immediately be reached for comment.

Copyright 2003, Crain Communications, Inc

emmeka

October 16th, 2003, 05:51 PM

Oh jesus christ!

is this becoming a pipedream?

Kris

October 16th, 2003, 11:55 PM

October 17, 2003

Times Tower Is Delayed as Partner Awaits Loan

By CHARLES V. BAGLI

The New York Times Company said yesterday that it would delay construction of a new headquarters on Eighth Avenue until its development partner obtains financing for the 52-story project.

The Times said its partner, Forest City Ratner, had had difficulty obtaining a construction loan in the current economy for the portion of the tower that Ratner will own. The tower will be on Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st Streets.

Russell T. Lewis, chief executive of the Times Company, said in a conference call yesterday with stock analysts that he did not anticipate moving into the new building until late 2006 or early 2007, about two years later than the company had originally anticipated.

Last month, the partners took possession of the property across the street from the Port Authority Bus Terminal where the skyscraper will be built. The 55 businesses on the site have all been relocated. But Forest City has been unable to land an anchor tenant for its space. Its negotiations with city officials for special tax-free financing known as Liberty Bonds are also at a standstill.

"Obviously it's a difficult climate for large commercial projects of that nature," Mr. Lewis said. "As long as there's no financing, the project will not go forward. We certainly expect that the market will improve in the future and then we would be prepared to move forward. Projecting exactly what will happen is not something I want to do."

But later in the day, Michael Golden, vice chairman and senior vice president of the Times Company, said he expected that Forest City would be able to get financing within the next year.

More than two years ago, the Times Company and Forest City reached a deal with the state's 42nd Street Development Project to build a new headquarters. The Times will own the 2nd through 27th floors, about 875,000 square feet, while Forest City will own the upper floors, about 725,000 square feet.

The partners are required to pay the acquisition costs of the land, but are liable only for $85.6 million. Anything above that will be refunded with interest over time. They are also required to demolish the existing structures and begin construction within a year after taking over the property.

But with rents falling and vacancy rates at relatively high levels, Forest City has not found a prime tenant.

In recent months, Forest City began negotiating with city officials for $400 million in Liberty Bonds, which were designated for rebuilding New York after the attack on the trade center. Forest City ultimately applied for $150 million in bonds, but has been unable to get city approval.

Forest City declined to comment yesterday.

Some good government groups, urban planners and executives involved in downtown rebuilding have criticized plans to use Liberty Bonds they say were meant for Lower Manhattan. Regulations may allow it, they say, but Forest City should be forced to live by the deal it struck more than two years ago.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Just Rich

October 17th, 2003, 10:41 AM

Geez, wouldn't you think they should have had all the financing issues dealt with before "relocating" 55 businesses.

kliq6

October 17th, 2003, 10:57 AM

Forest City is having finacial problems, so they cant risk building on spec

NYatKNIGHT

October 17th, 2003, 11:16 AM

We're looking at least another year? WTF

enzo

October 21st, 2003, 06:58 PM

I'm not suprised. But I also do not fear this project being scrapped.

We can live with a delay. Look how long it took for Bloomberg?

DougGold

October 21st, 2003, 07:30 PM

I have to say it seems that asking to get Liberty Bonds to help finance this building is at least obnoxious, at most reprehensible. If anything like that is ever approved, it would be tantamount to outright theft.

matt3303

October 21st, 2003, 11:02 PM

I'm not suprised. But I also do not fear this project being scrapped.

We can live with a delay. Look how long it took for Bloomberg?

Yeah, they have to build now too because people were evicted. If the site is left empty, the people who were evicted will make a huge stink. Then we'll have the questioning of all new construction projects, espically those that use eminant domain.

kliq6

October 22nd, 2003, 10:06 AM

i dont want to defend this action but look at it from a developers stand point. After 9/11 many projects planeed fell apart because of the new economy, insurance problems and banks not giving construction loans out. This is all still going on as big name develpers like Durst cant get bank loans to build because the banks say NYC is to much of a target. SO in a way the Liberty Bonds will help get around this issue until the government comes down on the banks for this action

I think the floorplates are too deep for condos. Plus, he'd still have to get financing.

Gulcrapek

October 22nd, 2003, 09:48 PM

The BoNY building downtown managed a condo conversion, with huge floor plates. Those kind of things make for unique apartments which usually sell.

JMGarcia

October 22nd, 2003, 09:49 PM

Which BoNY building?

Having rooms without windows near the core is always a hard sell, although people will buy them for the space.

NoyokA

October 22nd, 2003, 10:01 PM

I have doubts if a tenant will be found.

It’s not uncommon for these "profile" buildings to be partnerships between developers, but usually between larger tenants. Projects of this scope and scale are sometimes underrated, but these unique partnerships have occured elsewhere, however usually between two large tenants and there profile building.

And I agree with you JM, the design would have to be changed. But considering the current conditions, and that the "prize tenants" aren’t all that franticly looking for new digs, the “old” design is at least worth reexamining.

Gulcrapek

October 22nd, 2003, 10:01 PM

The one there was an article about here a little while ago. It mentioned some spaces were 200 feet deep, but skilled design would make the space very useful.

TLOZ Link5

October 22nd, 2003, 10:31 PM

Which BoNY building?

Having rooms without windows near the core is always a hard sell, although people will buy them for the space.

90 Washington Street is currently under conversion to residential. Why they're keeping the facade is beyond me...

kliq6

October 28th, 2003, 12:20 PM

LIBERTY BONDS KEY TO RATNER

By STEVE CUOZZO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW TIMES: Renzo Piano's design for the headquarters of the New York Times on Eighth Avenue.
- The New York Times
Email Archives
Print Reprint

October 28, 2003 -- IF Bruce Ratner succeeds in getting Liberty Bond approval from the city for the stalled New York Times headquarterstower, he's "pretty confident" that the rest of the project's financing will fall into place, according to his rep.
One reason for Ratner's confidence is a previously unreported provision of his partnership with the Times Co., which was formed to develop an architecturally distinguished, $850 million new home for the media company: a "formula" requiring the Times to "guarantee" up to $100 million of the loan that Ratner needs to construct the tower's top half.

The top portion, which Ratner will own, is estimated to cost $400 million to build. Ratner is putting in $100 million in equity, and plans to borrow the rest.

The Times Co.'s guarantee, to be signed at the time Ratner secures financing, is to "make a permanent lender comfortable in the event leasing isn't proceeding," his spokesperson said.

The arrangement "could come into play once construction is finished," with the amount to be based on how much space in Ratner's part of the building has been leased by then, the rep said. The guarantee is meant to "bridge the gap between the construction loan and permanent financing."

The Times tower is structured as a condominium, with the Times Co. owning the bottom half, where it will relocate its news operations and corporate headquarters from older digs on West 43rd Street.

Because Ratner has not yet signed up any tenants for his half - in effect a speculative office building - he's been unable to obtain a construction loan so far. That, he says, has forced him to seek help in the form of federally authorized, tax-exempt, low-interest Liberty Bond financing.

Although the city's Economic Development Corp. cold-shouldered his request for up to $400 million in bonds several weeks ago, an EDC spokesperson says the two sides are "still negotiating" over a possible allocation of $150 million.

Ratner's rep says that if the bonds are approved, he'll start work immediately on the shimmering, 52-story tower, designed by Renzo Piano, to rise on Eighth Avenue across from the Port Authority bus terminal.

But the bonds must be recommended by a joint city-state committee.

Officials of the Empire State Development Corp. declined to comment. But sources suggested they may be less sympathetic - not only because they're skeptical of the Times' threat to move some jobs out of the city.

It's also because the ESDC went out on a limb for the project, only to be told that Ratner isn't ready to start building.

The agency condemned the east block-front of Eighth Avenue between 40th and 41st streets, vacated stores and business and sold a 99-year lease to Ratner and the Times for $85.6 million.

Now Ratner says he can't yet build because he doesn't have the financing.

Ratner and the Times took possession of the site last month. The lease requires work to start within one year of the turnover, and completion within three years of the start of construction. It also says Ratner can't blame inability to obtain financing for not building.

Ratner's rep said that when the deal was struck two years ago, before layoffs and cutbacks knocked the wind out of the market, tenant prospects looked brighter.

Even if Ratner gets the Liberty Bonds, some question whether they would be enough. "What will get the tower up will be a tenant," an insider predicted.

Zoe

October 28th, 2003, 01:15 PM

I don't understand this. How can they take possession of those buildings, and kick out the business' that were in them and not even have the financing taken care of? Especially given the amount of media attention this received when they were evicting those businesses. Am I missing something here?

kliq6

October 28th, 2003, 01:22 PM

It just proves that the NY Times are the biggest liars in Media. On one hand in there editorial department, they defend the small business and fight against corporate welfare, while on the other, there new project may be th ebiggest corporate welfare case ever

Freedom Tower

October 28th, 2003, 06:33 PM

It just proves that the NY Times are the biggest liars in Media. On one hand in there editorial department, they defend the small business and fight against corporate welfare, while on the other, there new project may be th ebiggest corporate welfare case ever

You took the words right out of my mouth.

djf17

October 28th, 2003, 06:43 PM

The NY Times is a public company and management has a responsibility to extract the best possible government incentives for their project (the same that would be available to any major corporation).

BrooklynRider

October 29th, 2003, 02:50 PM

The NY Times is a public company and management has a responsibility to extract the best possible government incentives for their project (the same that would be available to any major corporation).

They should just build it one block north. Government incentives should not include the use of emminent domain to condemn and steal property from owners of the site. The NY Times want to assemble a parcel - great, I'm for it. Of course, supply and demand dictates prices. The value of that land is v ery high indeed and the owners have EVERY right to seek premium sales prices forthe property. The NY Times is a big successful corporate giant, public company or not. Apparently they simply can't afford to be in that neighborhood. Stealing property, and in this case I'm talking about the fairly well maintained building on the southern part of the 8th Ave block, is unacceptable. Whay don't they go build in the Far West Side where Bloomie is encouraging mega development?

Personally the tide has turned for me on this building. I think Bruce Ratner has proven to be a true scumbag developer. I'd rather not see this building go up. Why doesn't the times acquire some temporary space, demolish the 43rd street headquarters and build there?

kliq6

October 29th, 2003, 03:04 PM

I agree with the last post, but the buildings on that site were not really well maintained

dbhstockton

October 29th, 2003, 03:51 PM

Why doesn't the times acquire some temporary space, demolish the 43rd street headquarters and build there?

The current building, which dates to 1911, should and will be landmarked, if it hasn't been already. I think the plan is to just landmark the facade. Interesting uses can be concieved for the building -- inside it has large industrial spaces where the 3-story presses used to be (and its own substation on the electrical grid), unique for a touristy entertainment district.

I think it's the city that really wanted the Times to stay in its namesake neighborhood -- in addition to the tax incentives there are zoning variances (there will be no flashy led billboards, a zoning requirement in TS). Besides, there are obvious advantages to the Times Square area for the Times transitwise. The marketing advantages of having a tower on a full Times Square blockfront as opposed to mid-block are clear also.

Finally, I'm going to have to go against the cynicism of some of the posters here. I think the Times geniunely wants to beautify the cityscape of Manhattan with this project, from the street to the skyline. They have long been one the most important arbiters of culture in the nation, of architecture in particular, and they see this building as an opportunity to make an important contribution to the culture of the city. I keep thinking about how the publisher of the Chicago Tribune in 1922 held an international competition to build "the most beautiful building in the world." Anybody who's taken an art history survey course in college should know that that competition had a profound impact on the course of 20th century architecture. I'll stop my babbling now, before I start comparing the Times to the great Renaissance patrons.

kliq6

November 3rd, 2003, 05:44 PM

November 3, 2003 -- POISON warnings festoon the steel- gated, boarded-up east side of Eighth Avenue between West 40th and 41st streets. How long will the once sleazy-but-lively blockfront remain lifeless and toxic? Only the New York Times Co., developer Bruce Ratner, and Gov. Pataki know for sure.
This is where one of the finest real-estate projects ever cooked up between public and private interests should now be rising: the $850 million, 52-story headquarters tower of the Times Co. It's to be developed by a partnership of the Times Co. and Forest City Ratner Cos., spurred by the one-two punch of city incentives and state muscle.

But since the state went out on a limb by evicting scores of stores and businesses, Ratner and the Times are stalling. Ratner, developer of giant office, hotel and retail projects - a man bold enough to try luring the Nets to Brooklyn - is whining that he can't get a construction loan.

Until then, he says - or until the city coughs up low-interest Liberty Bond financing - the abandoned mess on Eighth Avenue will stay the way it is.

And the Times is using its news pages to make excuses for him.

This stinks to no end. Ratner was expected to start work promptly, not to leave a Midtown block in limbo. The lease he and the Times signed with the state explicity rules out using a financing problem as cause for delay.

Ratner and the Times still have 11 months to start work before they're in default, but even the possibility of delay is unacceptable. Either the state made a deal it ought to have known couldn't work, or Ratner is unconscionably trying to eke out more subsidies for a scheme that's too far along to let fail.

The Empire State Development Corp. emptied the block and sold the Times and Ratner a long-term lease for what ousted property owners called a sweetheart price of $85.6 million. But any public qualms were overwhelmed by the promise of a shimmering new skyscraper designed by Renzo Piano. It would bring great architecture to creepy Eighth Avenue, provide the media company with a much-needed new headquarters and toss in a batch of worthy public amenities.

Ratner and the Times took possession in September; the lease gives them a year from the turnover date to start construction, then three years to finish it.

But Ratner is ominously hinting that nothing will happen without Liberty Bonds. This despite the lease's "time being of the essence" clause, which expressly excludes "inability to obtain or to timely obtain . . . financing from a lender" from its list of "unavoidable delays" that can justify failure to proceed.

The project is really two buildings in one: The Times will own the bottom half; Ratner, in partnership with ING Real Estate, the top. And it's his so far-tenantless part, estimated to cost about $400 million, that has lenders balking.

The savvy developer sounded shocked - shocked! - to discover that, as the Times reported on July 17, "it is nearly impossible in the current economic environment to obtain a conventional construction loan" for a new office building without tenants.

But Ratner's "surprise" is the least convincing performance since "Chin" Gigante feigned madness. For one thing, banks stopped funding speculative office buildings a dozen years ago. Nor has Ratner's lack of tenants been a secret. A July 31, 2001, Post story reported a "huge gray cloud" atop the Times' space, "a tower-within-a-tower for which not a single square foot has been leased."

How could it be news to the ESDC? The agency's been trying to develop an empty lot right across the street from Ratner's, for years. It's stalled for the same reason: no tenants.

So Pataki and ESDC chief Charles Gargano had to know the Times scheme was vulnerable to financing difficulties. What were they thinking?

Ratner claims that when the deal was signed two years ago, the "climate" for finding tenants was better. Huh? In December 2001, things were so bleak that many feared a stampede out of town. And the asking rent for Ratner's empty floors, in the mid-$70s a square foot, is among the highest anywhere.

For long after 9/11, the Times sought to minimize competition for Ratner's "huge gray cloud" by using its pages to discourage rebuilding Downtown's lost office space.

The paper has dropped that tack in favor of one aimed at reducing Ratner's borrowing costs. (Which might also limit the Times' exposure: The Times Co. agreed to guarantee up to $100 million of Ratner's debt if none of his vacant space is leased when construction is finished.)

An Oct. 17 Times story, "Times Tower Is Delayed as Partner Awaits Loan," said the media giant would "delay construction" until Ratner finds financing.

The message was that Ratner's borrowing woes, and city intransigence on the Liberty Bonds, were to blame for a projected two-year delay. The story echoed what Times Co. CFO Len Forman told Wall Street analysts the day before: Ratner's financing trouble "has postponed construction, and at this point we expect occupancy in late 2006 or '07."

Under the lease, however, the Times and Ratner have no right to "postpone" starting construction beyond the one-year deadline. The project is slightly behind schedule because condemnation wasn't complete until last month. The only delay financing might cause is the one Ratner is threatening if he doesn't get Liberty Bonds. The Times' coverage seems aimed at setting the stage for a push to extend the deadline, based on the baloney that the "economy" has gotten in the way.

But the tower must rise now. As always when the state sets the terms, the man in the hot seat is Gov. Pataki, whom the Times helpfully endorsed last year against Carl McCall. If we're stuck with a derelict, toxic eyesore around the corner from Madame Tussaud's, we'll have him, as much as the Times or Ratner, to blame.

NYatKNIGHT

November 3rd, 2003, 05:55 PM

Who wrote that?

kliq6

November 3rd, 2003, 05:57 PM

Steve Cuozzo, NY Post today in editorials

Jasonik

November 3rd, 2003, 06:37 PM

The Times' coverage seems aimed at setting the stage for a push to extend the deadline, based on the baloney that the "economy" has gotten in the way.

Sounds like GW Bush's fault. :wink:

NYguy

November 3rd, 2003, 06:45 PM

Under the lease, however, the Times and Ratner have no right to "postpone" starting construction beyond the one-year deadline. The project is slightly behind schedule because condemnation wasn't complete until last month. The only delay financing might cause is the one Ratner is threatening if he doesn't get Liberty Bonds. The Times' coverage seems aimed at setting the stage for a push to extend the deadline, based on the baloney that the "economy" has gotten in the way.

But the tower must rise now. As always when the state sets the terms, the man in the hot seat is Gov. Pataki, whom the Times helpfully endorsed last year against Carl McCall. If we're stuck with a derelict, toxic eyesore around the corner from Madame Tussaud's, we'll have him, as much as the Times or Ratner, to blame.

Steve Cuozzo likes to gloat too much over the Times predicament with the tower, but he is right in that the state has a role to play. People were moved out to make way for this tower, and unlike the NYSE tower, this one MUST rise...

NYguy

November 12th, 2003, 09:27 AM

Will the tower get the Liberty bonds?...
http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/frontpage2.asp

So far, only a handful of non-downtown projects have been granted funds. The largest recipient is developer Douglas Durst, who received $650 million in Liberty Bonds to build a 57-story tower on West 42nd Street in Times Square to house the New York headquarters of the Bank of America.

Critics like John Whitehead, chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, decried that move, arguing that Liberty Bonds were never intended for use in a relatively healthy area like midtown. While $2 billion can be spent on projects outside lower Manhattan, those funds don’t have to be used there.

According to sources at the E.D.C., however, Mr. Durst also had a relatively easy time securing the $650 million in Liberty Bond financing because there was a very real possibility that the Bank of America would relocate its powerful securities division to North Carolina instead of keeping it in the city. That means hundreds of high-paying jobs for the city, with hundreds more on the way, according to the bank.

That isn’t the case with The New York Times.

"No one believes The New York Times is going to become The New Jersey Times," said a source at the ESDC.

"The New York Times project represents job retention, not job growth," said an official at the E.D.C. "So just in terms of economic impact to the city, the Bank of America project is an easier one to justify [for Liberty Bond use]."

That view is nearly universal.

It’s also the argument that a growing chorus of downtown rebuilding officials and elected officials are making. Mr. Whitehead and several civic groups, along with Representative Jerrold Nadler and City Council member Alan Gerson, are all stepping up their opposition to the use of Liberty Bonds for the Times building.

"Congressman Nadler believes it is improper and wrong to use Liberty Bonds outside the Liberty Zone," said a spokesperson for Mr. Nadler regarding the New York Times project.

Councilman Gerson, who testified in a hearing against the granting of Liberty Bonds for Mr. Durst’s Bank of America project, argued that the city should use the bonds to develop infrastructure and facilities that will attract businesses to the area, as opposed to using the bonds to fund one-off projects.

"My concern is that we’re just using Liberty Bonds on a case-by-case basis, without adequate foresight and planning," Mr. Gerson said.

djf17

November 12th, 2003, 11:18 AM

Stealing property, and in this case I'm talking about the fairly well maintained building on the southern part of the 8th Ave block, is unacceptable.

I agree that viable properties were "stolen" for the times site, however, your dissatisfaction needs to be directed towards state law -- which has repeatedly set precedent for condemation of properties for development sites. Whether right or not, the officers of the NY Times had the fiscal responsibility to make the 8th ave deal.

[/quote]

kliq6

November 12th, 2003, 11:38 AM

honestly if they dont get Liberty Bonds soon, this project may never be built

Freedom Tower

November 12th, 2003, 07:30 PM

Stealing property, and in this case I'm talking about the fairly well maintained building on the southern part of the 8th Ave block, is unacceptable.

I agree that viable properties were "stolen" for the times site, however, your dissatisfaction needs to be directed towards state law -- which has repeatedly set precedent for condemation of properties for development sites. Whether right or not, the officers of the NY Times had the fiscal responsibility to make the 8th ave deal.

[/quote]

I believe he's dissatisfied because they "stole" the property and are now stalling. If you do "steal" property you better be prepared and ready to build on it. Think about the stores that could have still been bringing revenue into the city, and the people who owned and worked in them. They shouldn't all get kicked out until it is final. NYTimes better build, if they don't soon it'll be a disgrace to the former owners of the property and everyone who worked there.

NyC MaNiAc

November 12th, 2003, 09:29 PM

They better build this tower.

When will we know if it's a go?

NYguy

November 13th, 2003, 09:35 AM

I believe it will be built. But demolition is a certainty before anything else. The state won't allow those empty buildings to sit, and there was a certain timeframe for demolition/construction to begin....

NYguy

November 19th, 2003, 10:29 AM

globest.com

Ratner Outlines NYT Building Plan

By Barbara Jarvie
Nov 18, 2003

NEW YORK CITY- During a breakfast meeting of the Real Estate Lenders Association, Forest City Ratner Cos. president and CEO Bruce Ratner further outlined plans for the 1.7 million-sf New York Times Co. building that will be constructed at 620 Eighth Ave.

A marketing kickoff will start in the first quarter of 2004--a timeframe that coincides with the start of construction. Ratner expects there will be a 35-month construction process and the site will be ready for occupancy in the first quarter of 2007.

He noted that the site hasn't been marketed much to date because he "didn't want it to get stale." Additionally, CB Richard Ellis' Mary Ann Tighe is handling the disposition of New York Times Co.'s current property.

Ratner estimates that the total cost is expected to be between $830 and $850 million with $100 million for the New York Times portion. Total construction costs are expected to be approximately $400 million. Ratner "couldn't say" what the actual land cost was. He also couldn't comment on the specifics of the financing of the project, however said, it was "very close" to getting done and that it will get done. "We're pretty much there."

Once completed, FCRC will have 700,000 sf of rentable space on floors 29 through 50. The New York Times will occupy floors two through 28. The lobby will feature a 25 ft vista with a garden and wood floors. He said the 20,000 sf of retail use will complement the building. "We'll get the right kinds of retail and not worry about the rent." Italian architect Renzo Piano Building Workshop designed the Class A building to be located in the Times Square submarket.

He said he has a good working relationship with New York Times officials and that they meet biweekly to go over various details of the project. Architectually, New York Times officials felt "a responsibility to do something special." He compared the building to the Seagrams, Chrysler and Lever Brothers sites, which are architecturally significant and have held their values over the years.

A good transportation hub, the popularity of the Midtown West Side corridor and the additio of 3,700 housing units in the are were a few of the reasons he cited as reasons why he expects the site will be a success venture. "You can't miss if you put a rental building on a subway stop," he commented.

"Development is a rocky road," Ratner explained. "Lending drives our business. As lenders, you want to make a profit," he said adding that it's also nice to have the opportunity to participate in worthwhile projects.

FCRC participated in other Times Square-area development projects including the 42nd Street Hotel, Entertainment and Retail Development, a 335,000-sf complex that features a 25-screen AMC Cineplex and a Madame Tussaud’s Wax Museum, topped with a 25-story, 455-room Hilton Hotel with sky-lobby restaurant. Other FCRC projects include the development of MetroTech Center, a $1 billion, 6.4-million-square-foot high-technology office, academic, and retail complex in Downtown Brooklyn.

emmeka

November 19th, 2003, 01:37 PM

I have no doubts that this will go ahead, but it just seems like a pipe dream.

NYguy

November 19th, 2003, 02:11 PM

I have no doubts that this will go ahead, but it just seems like a pipe dream.

Why, when all that has been done, does it seem like a pipe dream? I could see if it was in some other town, but this is NY. Projects like this get built all the time...

A marketing kickoff will start in the first quarter of 2004--a timeframe that coincides with the start of construction. Ratner expects there will be a 35-month construction process and the site will be ready for occupancy in the first quarter of 2007.

emmeka

November 19th, 2003, 02:50 PM

Wait a minute, before anyone decides to explode over my expressions. I meant that it is still hard to imagine because nothing has begun yet, i know that it will be built but when youre waiting for something like this you cant quite belive it untill you see it if you know what i mean.

dbhstockton

November 20th, 2003, 12:19 AM

I can't believe 2004 is right around the corner already.

emmeka

November 20th, 2003, 02:51 PM

Thank god I say, This year has been the worst of my life personally and ill be glad to say good ridance.

TLOZ Link5

November 20th, 2003, 06:16 PM

Thank god I say, This year has been the worst of my life personally and ill be glad to say good ridance.

Aaaw :(

What happened this year that was so sucky?

emmeka

November 20th, 2003, 06:50 PM

Well, like i said its very personal, but heres the gist of it;

A broken heart
A family that hate each other
losing all but 1 friend
getting a tumour
total change of lifestyle
having lots of medical problems
being forced to change my personality
and many more....

Thus resulting in severe depression and the attempting of suicide.

TLOZ Link5

November 20th, 2003, 09:06 PM

Ouch. :shock:

That's definitely a reason to hate your life. And I thought 1999 was crud.

But are things doing better now?

NoyokA

November 20th, 2003, 09:29 PM

Things will get better, dont worry yourself.

emmeka

November 21st, 2003, 09:08 AM

Yes im sure things will get better but over a long period of time. Those type of things take time.

BrooklynRider

November 21st, 2003, 10:01 AM

Well, emmeka, we all enjoy your company and contributions here.

Bear in mind, the quality of one's life is not dictated by the circumstances, but rather by what one does with them. While you say it is "bad", some might call it "rich in experience". Through difficulties, wisdom is gained.

So ends my philosophisizing.

billyblancoNYC

November 21st, 2003, 12:26 PM

It'll all work out, it usually does. Just be patient and have hope. Follow your passions and you'll be fine.

Don't lose too much of the edge, though, we need someone to deny the quality and development prospects of most NYC projects, damnit!! ;o)

emmeka

November 21st, 2003, 01:18 PM

Thanks you guys. That really means a lot to me. :)

NYguy

November 25th, 2003, 04:52 PM

It appears that demolition is nearing, at least on the 40th St side...

kliq6

November 25th, 2003, 04:59 PM

what did you see on 40th that seemed to suggest that?

NYguy

November 25th, 2003, 08:05 PM

what did you see on 40th that seemed to suggest that?

I pass through the area a lot, but I'll have to get photos...

kliq6

November 26th, 2003, 02:32 PM

This one i really want to see get going, mor ethen WTC and Durst

NYguy

December 22nd, 2003, 08:44 AM

Site of the NY Times tower, as of Sunday Dec. 21. These are the buildings that will be demolished. There was a little work going on yesterday, but I couldn't see what they were doing (they were behind screens). Lots of noise though...

http://www.pbase.com/image/24353895/large.jpg

NoyokA

December 22nd, 2003, 11:38 AM

From the looks of it the garage is being dismantaled.

NYguy

December 22nd, 2003, 05:58 PM

So, which tower will completed first, BOA or NY Times...I forget. Either way, it will be fun to watch them both rise...

NYguy

December 23rd, 2003, 09:01 AM

Either way, Midtown will be getting 2 great new skyscrapers! Choose your favorite now...

Does anyone else think the NYTimes tower and BofA tower look similar to the freedom tower?

The NYTimes Tower has office space, "lattice work" or something like it, then a spire, just like the freedom tower.

The BofA Tower has office space, and is slanted, then has a spire, just like the freedom tower.

I know they're not all identical, but if they're all finished around the same time I think people who aren't skyscraper enthusiasts will mix them up and confuse them for the first few months or so. What do you all think?
(Except for obviously the whole world will recognize the freedom tower)

dbhstockton

December 23rd, 2003, 08:48 PM

I think there's going to be a lot of kids wondering to themselves "when are they going to finish those buildings?" And then their parents will explain to them that they're supposed to look that way.

James Kovata

December 23rd, 2003, 09:44 PM

I can see more of a similarity between BoA and FT than I can between either of them and NYTT. Unless the FT improves as it develops, I think NYTT is superior to both.

emmeka

December 24th, 2003, 06:40 AM

I know they're not all identical, but if they're all finished around the same time I think people who aren't skyscraper enthusiasts will mix them up and confuse them for the first few months or so. What do you all think?

I wouldnt worry about that, do you know that people still confuse the esb and the chrysler!?! Its ridiculous. besides the fact that they both are 'pointy' looking there is no similarity.

Its even worse in England, would you belive that people see my photos of time warner and think that its the old WTC? how insaine!!!

maxinmilan

December 24th, 2003, 03:02 PM

Renzo Piano has really designed a masterpiece and I can assure that his curtain-wall is sensational, a thing never seen before. He has designed another newspaper headquarter in my city, Milan, Italy, and the curtain-wall is incredible, fragrant I would say. It seems unmaterial during the day and a miracle of light during the night...

James Kovata

December 24th, 2003, 03:08 PM

This may sound like a stupid question...or maybe I've just not researched the issue well enough, but is there finally a begin date for construction? :?: The last thing I recall was an issue relating to financing or signing other major tenants.

krulltime

December 24th, 2003, 07:36 PM

Why so many antennas all the sudden???

Gulcrapek

December 24th, 2003, 07:40 PM

This isn't a functional antenna, just a decorative spire/floaty pole.

Freedom Tower

December 24th, 2003, 09:35 PM

I know they're not all identical, but if they're all finished around the same time I think people who aren't skyscraper enthusiasts will mix them up and confuse them for the first few months or so. What do you all think?

I wouldnt worry about that, do you know that people still confuse the esb and the chrysler!?! Its ridiculous. besides the fact that they both are 'pointy' looking there is no similarity.

Its even worse in England, would you belive that people see my photos of time warner and think that its the old WTC? how insaine!!!

Actually I had just, a few months ago, witnessed someone saying "Hey look, the empire state building.", while they were actually viewing the chrysler building. It was amusing. That is insane though, that someone can mistake the AOLTW center for the old WTC. Everything is different except for the twin concept. Incredible.

Ninjahedge

December 29th, 2003, 10:25 AM

Ummmm, question....

Does anyone have the structurals on these buildings?

So many architects want to use the "clear story" and the glass curtainwall tecnique but happily ignore the fact that there has to be something there to HOLD IT UP!

Of all the "arts" out there, Architecture seems to be the only one that ignores the medium it uses. A sculptor knows not to make long limbs that will break under their own weight, but an architect will make a floating ceiling, and then blame the engineer when they tell them that it can only be done for $$$$ dollars.

For once I would like to see the engineer that comes up with systems that MAKE these architectural "masterpieces" work get the same credit that the "visionary" gets.

Sorry.... Just speaking from the other side there.

One question though. Does anyone think that there is something weird with that background building facade in the second rendering? The one with the squares on it.....?

BrooklynRider

December 29th, 2003, 10:40 AM

Steve Cuozzo likes to gloat too much over the Times predicament with the tower, but he is right in that the state has a role to play. People were moved out to make way for this tower, and unlike the NYSE tower, this one MUST rise...

I agree. Here's a guy who tends to make some good points, but his axe to grind against The Times make his articles no less disingenuous than the Time articles supporting Ratner. They kind of cancel each other out.

yanni111

December 29th, 2003, 11:35 PM

ninjahedge, that building with the squares on the facade is the hilton times square hotel. I think they did that to make it look temporarily nice since that wall has no windows. When they built it they knew that eventually the lot the wall faces would eventually have a tall building on it and the Milstein building will be built there. So the squares is better than a blank wall with no windoes at least until its totally blocked by the new building.

NoyokA

January 25th, 2004, 05:03 PM

Demolition "officially" began last week. January 22, 2004.

BrooklynRider

January 25th, 2004, 06:26 PM

How long ago did demolition begin and end on Milstein's project at 8th Ave &amp; 42nd. The only thing we are guaranteed of by the demolition of the NY Times site is a barran landscape of rat fields along Eighth Ave. I wouldn't be surprised if Ratner did it as a political move, considering all the hell he is catching for emminent domain abuse in Brooklyn.

If Milstein and Ratner breakgound on Construction this year, we can look truly forward to a new gateway to Times Square and a renaissance for the horrible avenue that is Eighth between 34th and 42nd.

NoyokA

January 25th, 2004, 06:42 PM

How long ago did demolition begin and end on Milstein's project at 8th Ave &amp; 42nd.

The Times is demolishing viable space here, whereas Milstein just tore up asphalt. I agree that demolition might mean nothing, but its a sign for better things to come....

NYguy

February 8th, 2004, 12:24 PM

A marketing kickoff will start in the first quarter of 2004--a timeframe that coincides with the start of construction. Ratner expects there will be a 35-month construction process and the site will be ready for occupancy in the first quarter of 2007.

Looks like complete demolition is about to begin on the site. That would mean they are keeping with the construction schedule. I have no doubts they will find a tenant, the Times Square Tower had a similar problem, but we're talking abou the "NY Times" tower. Who wouldn't want to be associated with that name recognition?

The Milstein site is a different story, different developers who have had their own unique problems.

Eugenius

February 11th, 2004, 08:33 PM

In addition, the Milstein site has that odd L-shape. That can't be good for large floor plates. NYTimes would be nice and rectangular.

Edward

February 22nd, 2004, 01:26 AM

The parking garage is gone clearing the way for New York Times Tower (http://www.wirednewyork.com/skyscrapers/new_york_times_tower/default.htm). 21 February 2004.

Cool. I went to get photos of the building that was being taken down, but its pretty much gone. The next building is about to be demolished though...

NYguy

February 22nd, 2004, 06:14 PM

I hadn't even realized the parking garage was gone because I was focusing on the building being demolished next to it. The next building to be demolished is the building immediately after the "parking" sign in this photo...

http://www.pbase.com/image/24353895/large.jpg

NYguy

February 27th, 2004, 10:10 AM

Snapped these photos yesterday....next up for demolition...kiss it goodbye!....

http://www.pbase.com/image/26425524/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/26425529/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/26425532/large.jpg

Edward

February 27th, 2004, 11:15 AM

TOKYO - Fujitec Co. (TSE:6406 - News) announced that it has received three orders from abroad for elevators and escalators that together are worth 5.5 billion yen (US$50.4 million). The New York Times Co. has placed a 1.9 billion yen order for 33 elevators for its new 52-story headquarters, the New York Times Tower. Some of the elevators will be able to travel as fast as 480 meters per minute. Fujitec expects to complete work on the order in the summer of 2006.

ZippyTheChimp

February 27th, 2004, 12:25 PM

480 meters/min = 26.246 ft/sec = 17.9 miles/hr.

RandySavage

February 27th, 2004, 12:55 PM

www.renzopiano.com

Some interesting stuff.

Kris

March 2nd, 2004, 01:49 PM

March 2, 2004

Where a Newspaper Began, the Only Sign Seeks a Buyer

By DAVID W. DUNLAP

Having somehow survived as long as The New York Times itself, the tatterdemalion of a building where this newspaper was born 152 years ago is on the market for the first time in six decades, leaving its future uncertain.

Home to The Times for the first 817 of its 52,776 issues to date, then to Leggat Brothers bookstore, George F. Cram's atlas company, the Vesuvius restaurant and finally a McDonald's, the decrepit six-story structure at 113 Nassau Street, between Ann and Beekman Streets, stands vacant. The asking price is $4.25 million, and no - just for the record - the Times Company isn't interested.

A new headquarters planned by The Times, across Eighth Avenue from the Port Authority Bus Terminal, will have four times as much space on a single newsroom floor as in the entire Nassau Street building, which was never well suited to the newspaper business. Augustus Maverick recalled the inaugural issue in "Henry J. Raymond and the New York Press," his 1870 biography of the founding editor.

"The first number of the Times was 'made up,' in open lofts, destitute of windows, gas, speaking-tubes, dumb-waiters and general conveniences," Mr. Maverick wrote. "All was raw and dismal."

He continued: "All the night, the soft summery air blew where it listed, and sometimes blew out the feeble lights; and grimy little 'devils' came down at intervals from the printing-room, and cried for 'copy'; and every man in the company, from the chief to the police reporter, gave his whole mind to the preparation of the initial sheet."

The building, a brownstone, was still under construction when Raymond took it over. He had a Hoe's Lightning Press installed in the basement and declared, when his four-page New-York Daily Times first hit the cobblestones on Sept. 18, 1851, that the newspaper would be published "for an indefinite number of years to come."

But not at 113 Nassau Street. Within three years, the demands of printing 28,000 copies a day were straining the operation to the breaking point. Readers up on 40th Street grumbled frequently about late delivery.

"With new and improved machinery, and larger and more convenient premises," The Times reported in April 1854, "all which we shall have as soon as builders and machinists will do their part, we trust our subscribers will have still less reason to complain of delay, or of anything else, than they have had hitherto."

A month later, the newspaper moved out and never looked back.

At least until 1954, when a plaque honoring Raymond was set into the sidewalk out front by Sigma Delta Chi, a journalistic fraternity. Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the president and publisher of The Times, attended the ceremony, as did several Raymond descendants, Mayor Robert F. Wagner and Hulan E. Jack, the Manhattan borough president.

The plaque described Raymond as a "pioneer in publishing the facts of the news without regard for party or personal preference." Customers heading for a 75-cent plate of spaghetti marinara at Vesuvius restaurant would have stepped right over it. Or on it.

Vesuvius opened in 1945 under the proprietorship of Tobias Lenzo, who had arrived in the United States from Italy in 1904 and worked as a musical conductor until 1927, when he went into the restaurant business. He bought 113 Nassau Street in 1945 under the name Helen L. Realty Corporation, in honor of his wife.

He died in 1947, but his children - the family name is now spelled Lenza - still own the building. "We got older and wanted to sell some things," said Michael J. Lenza, 71, explaining the decision to put it on the market.

Massey Knakal Realty Services, sales agents, are selling the building "as is." They calculated the development potential of the site as 38,250 square feet, more than twice as much as the current structure. The presence of a two-story building on one side of No. 113 and a vacant lot on the other suggests the possibility of a larger property assemblage.

After a quarter-century, McDonald's closed four years ago, leaving tall brick arches in a granite-tile facade that completely altered the lower half of the building, a large wall sign and a door decal promoting two apple pies for $1. (Plus tax.) Imprinted on the blank north wall, adjoining a vacant lot, is the ghostly silhouette of an old house that once stood at No. 115, with roof gables and a central chimney.

There is no trace of the plaque and, for that matter, none of The Times.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

NYguy

March 4th, 2004, 08:41 AM

More demolition...

8th Ave

http://www.pbase.com/image/26607847/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/26607851/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/26607853/large.jpg

40th Street

http://www.pbase.com/image/26607854/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/26607879/large.jpg

Towerman8

March 5th, 2004, 01:24 AM

Nooooooo that old building!!!!

TLOZ Link5

March 5th, 2004, 03:30 AM

Not everything old is worth saving.

Pilaro

March 5th, 2004, 04:03 AM

I would have to agree with TLOZ on the demolition of the dingy old building. I noticed the new Westin in one of NYguy's pictures and wondered if the two cites are adjacent? That would look cool after the tower is built.

NYguy

March 5th, 2004, 08:45 AM

I would have to agree with TLOZ on the demolition of the dingy old building. I noticed the new Westin in one of NYguy's pictures and wondered if the two cites are adjacent? That would look cool after the tower is built.

There's actually an empty lot (42nd - 41st) for another planned tower in between the Westin (43rd - 42nd) and Times Tower (41st - 40th)...

JMGarcia

March 5th, 2004, 10:07 AM

Not everything old is worth saving.

Ain't that the truth. Although I usually phrase it "just because its old doesn't mean its any good".

NYatKNIGHT

March 5th, 2004, 11:00 AM

Have we finally achieved the right balance between "tear it down, it's old", and "don't tear it down, it's old"?

TLOZ Link5

March 5th, 2004, 01:20 PM

Have we finally achieved the right balance between "tear it down, it's old", and "don't tear it down, it's old"?

I think so, considering I'm still p*ssed off about the demolition of Penn Station (even though I wasn't even born when it was torn down).

dbhstockton

March 5th, 2004, 03:43 PM

I think a lot of it has to do with what goes up after the old building is demolished. In the case of Penn Station, the intolerable ugliness of what went up there after '63 is what makes that case so bitter. You don't hear too many people lamenting the loss of the old Waldorf Astoria at 34th and 5th, and the old Hayden Planetarium is fading into memory; Within a generation it will be an obscure footnote.

JonY

March 6th, 2004, 04:05 AM

So heritage issues in regard to older buildings are pretty universal and are worthwhile of healthy debate.

Not meaning to 'Sydneyfy' the thread, however I feel it is relevant.

I'm sure Piano had Sydney's Aurora Place Tower on his resume to assit him in obtaining The NY Times Tower approval for development (as Aurora Tower is pretty highly respected in Australia and international architectural circles alike, as is R. Piano himself)

The same or similar white laminated glass that graces Aurora Place Tower from bottom to top will possibly clad The NY Times Tower as such.

I like that building, but NY Times Tower will be better :wink: (did that face work?)

Freedom Tower

March 7th, 2004, 12:32 PM

Have we finally achieved the right balance between "tear it down, it's old", and "don't tear it down, it's old"?

Haha. :lol: I was thinking that. Some people want everything old torn down for the new. Others want to preserve everything old and stop the new (often times the NIMBYs). On this forum it is the perfect balance! It isn't judged on old or new but the quality. If the old building is nothing compared to the new one. As in this case NYTT is much better than that building, even though it's not so bad. Then we agree to tear it down. If an old building is already gone but the new won't be as nice (As in the WTC???) the forum complains. This forum should be the city planning council :lol: :wink: